HomeMy WebLinkAboutweekly notes - January 6th 2017 or
The Ice Castles in Downtown Stillwater Opens today:
http://icecastles.com/stillwater/
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS-WEE T for: January 6,2017
TO: City Council Members&
FROM: Eric Johnson,City Admi s
LISTING OF UPCOMING MEETING -Th ugh 17
Zoning and Development Items:
1. As the City knows,it is required to complete new COMPREHENSIVE PLAN and be submitted to the MET COUNCIL by 12131/18.This is
a never an inexpensive endeavor and will also have separate elements of 10-year plans for water,sewer and storm water.Enclosed is a
DRAFT plan and proposal from TPC-Scott Richards Firm that would lead the City through that process, public meetings and submittals.
No action is immediately needed as we are awaiting elements from STANTEC on mapping and utilities.The City has reserved funding
over the past years for this process in the BUDGETED PROJECTS fund.
City of Oak Park Heights
2. PIZZA Ranch is OPEN. Holiday Is anticipating to open before the end of the month. SPRINT LEASE REVENUE-Est.-TOWER 2
3. A letter has been sent to SPRINT letting them know of the 2017 lease rate increase Runnin Total
on Water Tower#2. Their monthly rate is increased 5% over 2016 and now stands at Paid at year
$3,394 a month-$40,230 annually,and with an approximate estimated total revenue Year Monthly Annual End
through 12/31/17 of just over$400,000.SPRINT to date has be largely a good partner 2005 $ 1,840 $22,680 $ 22,680
at the site and very few issues have arisen over the last decade. 2006 $ 1,985 $23,814 $ 46,494
2007 $ 2,084 $25,005 $ 71,499
Other items 2008 $ 2,188 $26,255 $ 97,754
2009 $ 2,297 $27,568 $ 125,321
• The Washington County SherrifPs office will again be holding an Emergency Mgmt. 2010 $ 2,412 $28,946 $ 154,267
seminar for elected officials-they are trying to accommodate newly elected people 2011 $ 2,533 $30,393 $ 184,661
as well. See the enclosed if you are interested. 2012 $ 2,659 $31,913 $ 216,574
2013 $ 2,792 $33,509 $ 250,082
• The City received an email and letter from the City of Marine on the St. Croix 2014 $ 2,932 $35,184 $ 285,267
regarding the closure of the school in that community. I suspect their immediate 2015 $ 3,079 $36,943 $ 322,210
purpose for copying the Oak Park Heights and other cities is to see if there is a known 2016 . $ 3,233 $38,790 $ 361,000
plan for these facilities-if they do dose.Undoubtedly the incoming school board will 2017 $ 3,394 $40,730 $ 401,730
have this topic on their agenda so all may know more soon.
• The City has provided Washington County with its written confirmation for compliance of the rules under statute that at least one Council
member has received Board of Review Training. The City must also supply to Washington County-apparently,the assigned State Agent
-it's annual Hazardous Waste Reports-Staff is completing these by 1/31/17.
• By January 31st,2017 the City must complete its PAY EQUITY reporting-every three years- this endeavors to ensure that across similar
job classifications, there is not a disparate pay range between male and female staff. Staff is completing that work and any possible
adjustments would be presented to the Council on 1/24117.The City has been in compliance for more the last 14+years with comparatively
few wage adjustments being necessary.
• Short Update from MNDOT regarding the SCRCP-dated Jan 5m,2017
• Washington County's Legislative Agenda for 2017 is enclosed.
Mayor McComber provided:
1. Flyer on Upcoming Conversations if the Valley-for Jan 18th,2017
2. MASOC-Bulletin on Water Quality-December 2016
Please call me at any time if you have questions... 651-253-7837
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL & COMMISSIONS
MEETINGS & WORKSHOPS
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2017
Tuesday,January 10 5:00 p.m. City Council Worksession
(Conference Room)
6:00 p.m. City Council Meeting
(Council Chambers)
Wednesday, January 11 5:00 P.M. Council Goal Setting
(Conference Room)
Thursday,January 12 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting
(Council Chambers)
Monday,January 23 7:00 p.m. Parks Commission Meeting
(Council Chambers)
Tuesday, January 24 5:00 P.M. City Council Workession
(Conference Room)
6:00 p.m. City Council Meeting
(Council Chambers)
After Council City Council Worksession
Meeting (Conference Room)
Thursday,February 9 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting
(Council Chambers)
Wednesday,February 15 6:00 p.m. City Council Meeting
(Council Chambers)
Monday,February 27 7:00 p.m. Parks Commission Meeting
(Council Chambers)
Tuesday,February 28 6:00 p.m. City Council Meeting
(Council Chambers)
TPC3601 Thurston Avenue N, Suite 100
Anoka, MN 55303
Phone: 763.231.5840
Facsimile: 763.427.0520
TPC§PlannlngCo.com
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Eric Johnson
FROM: Scott Richards
DATE: December 20, 2016
RE: Oak Park Heights — Comprehensive Plan 2040 — Work Program,
Timeline and Budget
TPC FILE: 236.10
The City of Oak Park Heights has recognized the need to update the Comprehensive
Plan 2008 to both satisfy Metropolitan Council requirements and provide ongoing
direction for development and land use, housing, community facilities, utilities, and
parks and trails. It is recognized that the Comprehensive Plan 2008 provided positive
direction and strategies for the upcoming decade.
The Comprehensive Plan 2040 process will update and reinforce those goals, policies
and plans from the 2008 plan. Additionally, it will focus on the new issues and
challenges this community will need to address in the next ten years.
As follows, please find the work program, timeline and TPC, Inc. budget for the
Comprehensive Plan process. Stantec, the City's Engineer will submit a separate
budget addressing the transportation, wastewater, surface water, and water supply
plans as well as all the mapping that will be required for the plan.
Work Program. The following is a summary of the proposed work program for the
Comprehensive Plan update:
■ Issues Identification and Inventory. Comprehensive plans are most effective
when the community sets the agenda for the project, entitling them to a sense of
ownership in the plan and its outcome. Areas of concentration for the
Comprehensive Plan update will be identified during this initial phase of work
through the following tasks:
1. Individual interviews with the City Council to identify issues and
opportunities.
2. A Planning Commission work session.
The summary of information resulting from the Issues Identification phase will lay
out a "strategic plan" for the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan program.
This strategic plan will guide the remaining work program, both in content and
format.
■ Policy Planning. The Policy Plan chapter of the Comprehensive Plan describes
in written form what the community desires to accomplish in terms of its physical
environment and how these goals are to be achieved. The Policy Plan
addresses land use, natural environment, housing, transportation, community
facilities and administration. This chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
establishes a fundamental review and decision-making process and the basis
upon which the development framework for the City can be formulated and
implemented. The policy planning phase of the Comprehensive Plan update will
include the following efforts:
1. Based on the Issues Identification and Inventory process, a mission
statement, policy statements and community goals will be determined.
2. Present the draft policy plan to the Planning Commission, Parks
Commission and City Council for review and direction.
■ Land Use Plan. Based on the foundation established by the Issues Identification
and Policy Planning tasks, the Land Use Plan chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan provides a guide for future community growth and improvements. The Land
Use Plan is a narrative and graphic description for future land uses within the
City, as well as the background and rationale for how these designations are
established. To this end, the Land Use Plan serves both an educational and
decision making purpose to establish an understanding of how continued
development in the community is to occur encompassing the following elements:
1. Land Use.
2. Natural Environment.
3. Housing.
4. Community Facilities.
5. Economic Completeness and Redevelopment.
2
The work program anticipates Planning Commission and Parks Commission
meetings throughout the Summer of 2017 to discuss the various elements of the
Land Use Plan.
■ Transportation Plan. TPC will work with Stantec on drafting the transportation
plan elements for the Comprehensive plan. This section includes the following:
1. Roadways.
2. Transit.
3. Bicycling and Walking.
4. Aviation.
The Transportation Plan would be discussed in the Fall of 2017 by the Planning
Commission.
■ Engineering System Plans. Stantec will draft the engineering plans to include
wastewater, surface water and water supply plans. The Planning Commission
will review these plans in the Fall of 2017.
■ Parks, Trails and Walkways Plan. TPC, Inc will work with the Parks
Commission in updating the park and trail plans for the City. The Parks
Commission will review the plans in the Fall of 2017.
■ Implementation Program. A chapter addressing priority actions by the City
related to implementation of the Comprehensive Plan update will be the final
element drafted as a summarizing the policies and plans of the overall document.
The Planning Commission will review these plans in the Fall of 2017.
■ Approval Process. Upon completion of the draft Comprehensive Plan
document for public review, an open house/public hearing will be held by the
Planning Commission to present the proposed plan. Input from the open
house/public hearing will be summarized for consideration along with
recommendations for any modifications. The Planning Commission will provide a
commendation to the City Council on adoption. Once the City Council reviews
id adopts the plan it will be sent to adjacent jurisdictions for review and then to
e Metropolitan Council.
bles.
and Stantec would transmit all preliminary reports and draft documents to the
compatible formats. Specific deliverables include the following documents outlined as
part of the work program:
■ Draft Issues Identification and Inventory document/maps.
■ Draft Policy Plan document.
■ Draft Land Use Plan document/maps.
■ Draft Transportation Plan document/maps.
■ Draft Parks and Trails Plan document/maps.
■ Draft Implementation Plan documents/maps.
■ Final Review Comprehensive Plan (all elements).
■ Adopted Comprehensive Plan (all elements).
Budget.
Based on the work program outlined herein and the rates established by TPC, Inc. the
following project budget for the Comprehensive Plan update is proposed. The costs
outlined below do not include the time, materials and expenses of Stantec which are
provided in a separate budget. All Planning Commission, 'Parks Commission, and City
Council meeting costs are included in the existing technical assistance retainer. All
other meetings required will be billed at the established rate of$200.00 per meeting.
■ Issues Identification and Inventory
80 hours @ $100/hour = $8,000
■ Policy Plan:
70 hours @ $100/hour= $7,000
■ Land Use Plan:
120 hours @ $100/hour= $12,000
■ Transportation Plan:
45 hours @ $100/hour = $4,500
■ Parks, Trails and Walkways Plan:
80 hours @ $100/hour= $8,000
■ Implementation Plan:
30 hours @ $100/hour= $3,000
4
■ Approval Process:
25 hours @ $100/hour= $2,500
Total: $45,000
Schedule.
The Comprehensive Plan is expected to be completed in approximately 15 months with
adoption by the City Council in March 2018. Review by adjacent jurisdictions and the
Metropolitan Council could take an additional six months.
Comprehensive Plan 2040
Planning Commission/City Council — January 2017
Review Planning Process
Start preparing maps January 2017
Parks & Rec/Planning Commission/City March 2017
Council — Identify Key Issues and
Questions to Ask Community
Open House#1 —Ask Community Key May 2017
Questions
Results and Draft Policy Statements— July 2017
PC, Parks and CC
Future Land Use/Housing - PC August 2017
Natural Resources - PC September 2017
Transportation/transit/ October 2017
Bic cle/Walkin /Aviation/Frei ht - PC
Parks and Trails — Parks November 2017
Wastewater/Surface Water/Water Supply November 2017
- PC
Parks and Trails — PC January 2017
Implementation - PC February 2018
Planning Commission Public Hearing March 2018
City Council adoption March 2018
Need to give adjacent communities 6 April 30, 2018; DUE -July 31, 2018
months to review draft:
Comp Plan required to be submitted for September 31, 2018; DUE -December
review 31, 2018
5
�4
I
City of OA Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007*Oak Park Heights,MN 55082.Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574
January 4th,2017
Sprint Contract and Performance
Sprint Site ID#MS21XC930-C
Mailstop:KSOPHT0101-22650
6391 Sprint Parkway
Overland Park,KS 66251-2650
RE:City of Oak Park Heights—Lease Rate Increase as of 1-1-17
Dear Sprint Representative,
Pursuant to the Site Agreement between the City and your firm,(see Article 3.Rent)the annual rent will be increased
on Jan 1st during the term hereof by the greater of an increase of 5%from the previous year's annual rent OR by an
amount equal to the increase in the Consumer Price Index—C.P.I.(All Midwest Urban Consumers,All-Cities,All Items,
1984=100,as published by the Bureau Labor Statistics—BLS).
The C.P.I.for year ending in 2015 from year end 2016 is currently estimated to be 0.82%+/ Enclosed is the data
from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics website and is well below 5.0%.See source:
https://data.bls a0� ..miseries/CUUR0200SAO?ar m o253bdata tool XGtabie&output view=da+
graphs=true
monthly
Accordingly.thea ro date increase for 2017 a menta Der the Site A reement is 5%over 2016.New 2017
month) mento are to be$3,394,109(The 2016 rate was$3,232.56)
If you haver pt afr'eady made this rental rate revision,please immediately do so and provide the City with
�9 a check in
the amhat may have been omitted for Jan or Feb 2017,
Pe
ase
to �1A{{,if you have any questions CpllwalOt PdMbdR-ND1banearw 019
Of�Ylal DrAvaf010
% Lauf? aLRMMW
w: we..rm..A�istrator
1h7 .0., 2W ..
2020 1W0 =7 I= 1WA 120.0 1N.1 70/11 � � 01ev D. An ul KO Mun
1107 - 1091 1917 1209 Af 70
191910 fOLAS U9110 ta200 109111 fM.M ta2920 IS=,1110.714 120.00 1@11. 123
1120 11911. 10.9.0
Cc: Weekly notes/City Finance Dept 11987.297312 m2fe•2NAW 211M 2 afat 20&M 20&M 2M.721 ,1u „".F314r_-
2113
"Zolam e e 20 19 20281 7oe910920 231Op2790.051 216x07 MX4 119722 dorsal i�AlA20 ;;meq- ' ta3]0�3AM13Mark Vierling,City AttorneyIN MUM1712 .. 39320 0.34 rzf'a.as:109)0 M s zwe 2 :9970 2m.IQ 5 m ,- .'W11a M a Yf6Amove1809 Northwestern Ave.Suite 110 2t9W tri®2221r 7211121 m9u tans 78020 731 gp n2 Zat77 al.;: af.1w 7$IA 21.222211
2010. 7727?8109 72900=21..2AM 10,0®220.201 239107 7701113 7797W.721910
Stillwater,MN 55082 21.
7011 01.010 772,7017221119 20,97 MUM 85Ai 272127 m 70 2MaW 89�
1110. mgr 22910.6.22/81 22LM 711..10 2VAN m JW 2111120 7a.200 220.4211112382 229210 8200 20770
2201
Sprint National Lease Management EMWAFE
6391 Sprint Parkway
MailstopKSOPHT010122650
Overland Park,Kansas 662512650 �"�o' '
,< 11@i
Sprint Law Department
Attn:Tennant Real Estate Attomey
6391 Sprint Parkway
Mallstop KSOPHT0101-22020
Overland Park,Kansas 66251-2020
Eric Johnson
From: Jennifer Pinski
Sent: Wednesday,January 4,2017 1:13 PM
To: Eric Johnson
Subject: FW: Elected Official Disaster Roles and Responsibility Training Offering
Importance: High
Requested assistance from city/township clerks:
Good afternoon all,
Below is an email we are hoping to get to all city/township elected officials and administrators. The message is
in regard to the last of three training opportunities we are holding that pertain to elected official roles and
responsibilities in disasters. We reserved this last installment so newly elected officials would have a chance to
attend. Of course all are welcome as the previous dates may not have been convenient for some.
I am asking all of you to please forward the message below to all of your elected officials and administrators.
Thank you in advance for your support,
Doug B.
Doug Berglund
Washington County Sheriffs Office
Director, Emergency Management
W:651-430-7682
C: 651-792-6672
doualas.berglund(&co.washinaton mn us
To our city and township elected officials,
The Washington County Sheriff's Office is inviting you to attend an important educational opportunity titled
Minnesota Emergency Management/Elected Officials Roles and Responsibilities. (date, time and location
below)This will be the last of the three presentations offered for this class.
This presentation is the first module of the next Washington County Integrated Emergency Management Course
(IEMC). The IEMC is a training program for county and city personnel that will have a role in disasters or
major emergency events. It is broken up into five separate modules to address roles and responsibilities for all
positions, disciplines, and responders. Module 1 will be delivered by retired MN National Guard Brigadier
General and current Minnesota Homeland Security and Emergency Management Director Joe Kelly.
Module 1 is approximately two hours and will focus on the specific roles and responsibilities of city/township
elected officials should a disaster occur in their community. This will be an excellent opportunity to learn about
1
emergency declarations, additional resource requests, financial consequences (Le. FEMA reimbursement
thresholds), and much more.
Some of you will be asked to attend Module 5 (the last module in the IEMC program)in 2017 with a three day
(half day,full day, half day) event at Camp Ripley which will include presentations, discussion, and a table top
exercise. Space will be somewhat limited for Module 5 as it will include county commissioners, fire fighters,
law enforcement, public works,public health, etc.
The first IEMC was a five day training course held in 2010 at the Emergency Management Institute in
Emmitsburg Maryland. Some very valuable lessons came out of the last course, so after multiple requests we
are pleased to be able to offer this once again with a much less intrusive schedule. It's our hope that the shorter
version and closer proximity will be manageable enough to accommodate everyone's schedule.
The training sessions can be posted as an Open Meeting as some jurisdictions may have a quorum present. This
will be the last of three offerings for this training/education presentation.
Please RSVP to me by February 9th; we will need a minimum of 12 to conduct the presentation.
The New National Guard Armory in Stillwater
350 Maryknoll Dr.
Stillwater
February 16,2017
Time: 6:30pm—9:00pm
Please call or email me with any questions or comments about Module 1 or the IEMC program.
Thanks for your time and I hope to see you there,
Doug Berglund
Director, Washington County Sheriff's Office
Emergency Management Division
651-430-7682
douglas berglund(cDco washington mn us
2
Eric Johnson
From: Lynette Peterson <mosc@midconetwork.com>
Sent: Tuesday,January 3, 2017 3:08 PM
To: 'Barb Proulx'; 'Kim Points'; bbear@ci.hugo.mn.us; 'Kathy Schmoeck'; Ilklein65
@hotmail.com; 'Denise Pontrelli'; Eric Johnson; Molly.ORourke@co.washington.mn.us,
rep.bob.dettmer@ house.mn;sen.karin.housley@senate.mn
Subject: District 834 Letter from the City of Marine on St Croix
Attachments: Board request.pdf
Good Afternoon,
Attached is a letter from the City of Marine on St Croix City Council to the Stillwater School District 834 Board
Members. Please forward on to your respective Board Members, City Council members etc.
Sincerely,
Lynette Peterson
City Clerk/Treasurer
City of Marine on St. Croix
121 Judd Street
Marine on St. Croix, MN 55047
651-433-3636
Marine.govoffice.com
1
December 19,2016
George Hoeppner
School Board Chair
Stillwater Area Public Schools
1876 Greeley Street South
Stillwater,MN 55082
Re: Marine School Property
Dear Mr. Hoeppner:
As-members of the Marine on St. Croix City Council and its Marine Elementary Task Force,we
request that the School Board allocate some space on its agenda for January 4,2017,to permit
discussions between us, on behalf of the City of Marine on St. Croix,and the Board concerning the
Task Force's review of matters affecting the school(like zoning)and dialogue regardingreservation
of the school building so that it can continue to serve as a community asset, p
We would anticipate that the allocation of 10-15 minutes agenda time would be sufficient for initial
discussions and, during that time,we can discuss the School Site Task Force's activities and discuss
with the Board our desire to engage in cooperative planning about the school building and its future
as a community asset.
PIease confirm with us the allocation of agenda space. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Vhlardun
City of Marine on St. Croix Council
cc: Area Legislators
ISD#834 Municipalities
MINNESOTA- REVENUE
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Trained Board Member Certification
Minnesota Statute 274.014 subdivision 3 states:
"Any city or town that conducts local boards of appeal and equalization meetings must provide proof to
the county assessor by February 1, 2006, and each year thereafter, that it is in compliance with the
requirements ofsubdivision 2. Beginning in 2006, this notice must also verb that there was a quorum
of voting members at each meeting of the board of appeal and equalization in the current year
[emphasis added/..."
Please select one of the options below and fill in the information that is needed. Upon completion please email
or fax the completed form to the connty assessor no later than February 1 of the current year. A DOR
Property Tax Compliance Officer will be reviewing the files to be sure that all jurisdictions are complying with
the submission of these forms by the February 1"deadline.If the form is not returned by February 1$;the
board of appeal powers will be transferred to the county for the current assessment year.
Option 1:
As of February 1 of the current year, c'i 0�aF A*y 1�6?b�%3 has verified that at
(Jurisdiction Name:ex—City of Rice&ear Twp)
least one board member has attended the Board of Appeal and Equalization training in the past four years.
Aller- kopj — �Dl 7
(Name of one trained board member) t expiration date)
is�9 iG
?hon rklAdmin Signature) Date
4ssessor Signature) Date
0
7 77
a
CE � O O � rn N a7 41 O W h O) h h !� h O) h h h
CO CD O? co
� N cm 104M 4= OQ0000000 - - - - -
_� _Q
h h h (� h h h h h h ti ti ti ti ti
h h h h h h 1� h h
M Vr cn M M M
m 0 O O O p O M M VM
c) M M M pry N
GN cNN mN m m m m m0 X1 �0V00 pp
C W •_ = cl
O C C•'D = _C C C C CSO W CO N C N C Ni cV N N m N 0 m 0
OrnOQrnOrnO G � 'c C c � C � r °D °r° � aoaoao aoaoa3 _� � _� � .Sco
Oa� 000rnOr- aarna� 0i—, c a Geo r
rn rn Zis — O e-
C C G C C C C C G G
o .0.. •.0. S S O O O O O p G G C G O C G O O O G
r.+ C G C C o w �.. .S �+ �0..
G C C G C C C = C C C C = C = C G = C C C C C G
L L •G L Z L L L L t L L L .� L .0 t = L L L t L L L L L 33L t L L yy� L �
? ? J-11
? ?
W W W W W W W W W W W W Q1 W W W W W W �R W
L L t t
W W f!J fn
IAF UUU ti c y
°o ZZ aaaa X X .as
U3 c E c c 0) Co c cGv tGo ccu m _ Q
+"• o o c o 0 o w c—° �II o 9 9 U m v� »- U_
~ 12 7 > 7 Y Y Y W I— H sG > > > o o v fn 7n cn = R m cp 3
= 00M
c7xxx 'Q .c� 9M � � ,�a � 0 0 0 0 . E E -s o 0 0 � YYY ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o E E E U U U U U to u 1 o m m W J c °�
` m `�° c
y mono mU0C3000UCUCUppmpm Gm o �' � YY ° "� "w o co
m ca3 a—yi
� 3
o
MMMMMO
ca �
"d i0 L L �"" L •._
m 4C7 m m CD cc L L
m E E E E .2 1 E U 1.0 M -0 � -0 .0
Q o co 0 o m m m m E E L E m M L L L ® m E aEi E E E E
fi 0 0 R N m m m C C C G C G C L C
.. o 0 0 0 0 0 o o > 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 m m m o
$ mmmmUv � 0000MMcnmUa? cnt� cnUUUUUUUO oco
1°
m
acma � cu L
E cu o c - v t �' cmi, = t E t a R
1- tY O W O m V eu m W m W G m ca G G G Y C > G
� � � � mo: aoamm �
C CL o,
CL ca
o S.
o � �
o n, c c rc5
m m a a c o f ami 0 v m c SCo
�n
0 4 3 m i Q a m R G E E `m m 'c E LD m Y
v°i C7 ¢ SS U Y °' o a`� t m O c
� mC9 � m �cxY � � � o' = v� O"mz E m ._ Co S •a = 0 m w
w wcoax o
V
rr
Eric Johnson
From: Mary Mccomber <marymccomber@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday,January 5,2017 10:17 AM
To: Eric Johnson
Subject: Fwd: Happy New Year!
-----Original Message-----
From: St Croix Crossing Project Team <stcroixcrossing.dot@public.govdelivery.com>
To: marymccomber<marymccomber@aol.com>
Sent: Thu, Jan 5, 2017 8:33 am
Subject: Happy New Year!
Having trouble viewing this email?View it as a Web page
Aft
tlurvr°'* Ha New Year!
CROSSING Happy
January 5, 2017
Hello again,
We hope you had a wonderful New Year. The week of Jan. 3, crews headed back to the
project site and 2017 construction began. Check out this time-lapse video of St. Croix
bridge construction.
i
P e
View of Piers 8— 12. See a time-lapse video n o of pier tower and bridge deck construction
Don't miss a beat
During the winter months, crews are on site unless the temperature is 10 below or 20
below with the wind, but project updates are less frequent. Stay current and follow us on
Facebook and Twitter for frequent construction highlights and updates.
Stay connected
• Sign-up for project email updates
• Like us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Visit the project website
• Call the project hotline at 1-855-GO-CROIX(462-7649)
• Stop by the St. Croix Crossing Project Office at 1862 Greeley St. S. in Stillwater.
Office hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. M-F.
MnDOT •
Stay Connected with Minnesota Department of Transportation:
MnDOT's Social Media Hub>>
SUBSCRIBER SERVICES:
Manage Subscriptions I Unsubscribe All
2
W shin on
ount
2017
Legislative
gen a
ones to
Washington County
Legislative Agenda—2017
This document represents Washington County's State Legislative interests for the year 2017. The county
is a member of and in general supports the agendas of the Minnesota Inter-County Association (MICA)
and the Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC). The recommendations and platform of these two
organizations are included as a part of this document.
In addition,the county has legislative priorities that are specific to county interests and we have included
these on separate sheets with detailed explanations as to the issues and rationale for support. The county
would like the support of the entire delegation in these highlighted areas.
Table of Contents
Pane
Washington County's Vision, Mission,Goals,and Values..............................................................................1
Washington County Contact Information.......................................................................................................2
County Specific Priority Items:
Local Property Tax Protection
Fundingof Mandated Services ................................................................................................................3
State Funding for Safety Net Services ......................................................................................................6
Community Corrections Funding .............................................................................................................8
State Funding for Minnesota Eligibility Technology System (METS) Improvements ...............................9
Transit
Transitway Development in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area............................................................11
Gateway Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit.....................................................................................................12
New Bus Route 363—Red Rock Corridor Phase I Implementation........................................................13
Expanding the Regional Transit Capital Area in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area..............................14
FreightRail..............................................................................................................................................15
Support for a Study of the 1-94/494/694 System Interchange....................................................................16
Financial Incentives for Solid Waste Processing.........................................................................................17
Lessard Sams Outdoor Heritage Council Funding for the Carnelian Creek Conservation Corridor
Proposal.......................................................................................................................................................19
Red Rock Crossing Tax Increment Financing District..................................................................................22
TaxForfeited Land Conveyance .................................................................................................................24
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources—White Bear Lake Lawsuit ................................................26
County Commissioner Appointment ..........................................................................................................28
In-Person Absentee Voting Procedures .....................................................................................................29
Support Increased Funding for Aquatic Invasive Species County Aid ........................................................30
Local Wetland Replacement Program ........................................................................................................31
Appendices:
Suggested Mandates for Consideration of Repeal or Reform
Association of Minnesota Counties(AMC) Legislative Policy Positions When Finalized
Minnesota Inter-County Association (MICA) Legislative Platform
WashingAm_
5F=-_�County
WASHINGTON COUNTY'S VISION, MISSION, GOALS, AND VALUES
Vision:
A great place to live,work,and play...today and tomorrow.
Mission:
Providing quality services through responsible leadership, innovation,and the cooperation of dedicated
people.
Goals:
• To promote the health,safety,and quality of life of citizens.
• To provide accessible, high-quality services in a timely and respectful manner.
• To address today's needs while proactively planning for the future.
• To maintain public trust through responsible use of public resources,accountability,and openness
of government.
Values:
1. Ethical: to ensure public trust through fairness,consistency,and transparency.
2. Stewardship: to demonstrate tangible,cost-effective results,and protect public resources.
3. Quality: to ensure that services delivered to the public are up to the organization's highest
standards.
4. Responsive: to deliver services that are accessible,timely, respectful, and efficient.
5. Respectful: to believe in and support the dignity and value of all members of this community.
6. Leadership: to actively advocate for and guide the county toward a higher quality of life.
1
WASHINGTON COUNTY CONTACT INFORMATION
District 1 Commissioner Fran Miron 651-430-6211
E-mail: Fran.Miron@co.washington.mn.us
District 2 Commissioner Stan Karwoski 651-430-6212
E-mail: Stan.Karwoski@co.washington.mn.us
District 3 Commissioner Gary Kriesel 651-430-6213
E-mail: Gary.Kriesel@co.washington.mn.us
District 4 Commissioner Karla Bigham 651-430-6214
E-mail: Karla.Bigham@co.washington.mn.us
District 5 Commissioner Lisa Welk 651-430-6215
E-mail: Lisa.Weik@co.washington.mn.us
Molly O'Rourke, County Administrator 651-430-6002
E-mail: Molly.ORourke@co.washington.mn.us
Kevin Corbid, Deputy Administrator 651-430-6003
E-mail: Kevin.Corbid@co.washington.mn.us
Address: Washington County Government Center
Office of Administration
P.O. Box 6
Stillwater, MN 55082-0006
John Kaul, Legislative Representative 612-485-9199
15500-42nd Street South
Afton, MN 55001
E-mail: iikaul@aol.com
2
FUNDING FOR MANDATED SERVICES
Position:
Washington County seeks to protect our local taxpayers from any further shifts of state costs to the county
property tax(which is a regressive and unpopular form of taxation)and the potential erosion in our ability
to deliver high quality, essential services in an efficient manner. We encourage the legislature and the
Governor to provide flexibility and full funding for any mandates imposed on local governments.
Issue:
County governments are tasked by both the state
and federal governments to carry out mandated County Program Aid (CPA)
programs on their behalf. Nearly 80% of all
operating costs in the annual county budget are Compared to Levy Funding
to pay for mandated services. Counties have $10
identified potential reforms, repeals, or changes N
that could reduce costs by over$8 million a year
so%
ss
just for Washington County (see Appendix A for -
a list of potential items for reform). The cost s $' 46%
savings from potential reforms and repeals $6 44%
continue to grow as new mandates are passed $S 42% 8
and the cost of existing mandates increase. In $4 40%
7010 2011 1012 7018 2014 1015 2010 1017
just the past few years,the potential savings has fpd
risen from just more than $6 million to now -4-CPA-W`e"%
nearly $8.5 million. Federal and state financial R
assistance is provided but does not cover the full
cost of providing the mandated services and in
many situations the amount of aid does not even cover the increases in costs from one year to the next
to provide those services. The shifting of costs to the county property tax places an unstainable burden
on local property taxpayers and inhibits the county's ability to provide high quality,essential services.
County Program Aid (CPA) is provided by the state to help fund state mandated services. The increase in
aid in 2012 and 2013 allowed the county to lessen its reliance on the property tax. A slight decrease in
aid in 2016, followed by a small increase in 2017, has meant that aid amounts have remained basically
unchanged since 2014.
3
Washington County strives to provide
Cumulative Population, Inflation, and services in a highly effective and efficient
Levy Growth since 2010 manner. The county has the second lowest
12.00% operating costs per capita of the seven
10.00%
metropolitan counties and the third lowest
levy per capita. The county has the lowest
s 8.00% human services administrative costs per
6.00% capita of all Minnesota counties and one of
4.00% the lowest county tax rates. The county
% holds the highest credit rating (AAA) from
0.OW% both major rating agencies. The overall
1010 3041 d712 3013 301M A 3116 growth of the county levy over the past five
POWb6lnn Growlh OSP% 1.56% 3.71% 6.D3% S.L6% SdD% 7.}JY%
�Inflatbn Grac+fid L30% 6,8916 G.G3% 9.63% 9.83% 1083%
-� 6�Pfi6h a�6% =.3D% 1.=3% 1..% 1.79% 53f% �G3% years has been considerably lower than the
37 county's growth in population and the
growth in inflation. However, inadequate
state resources threaten our ability to
continue providing the core functions of county government at a reasonable cost to county property
taxpayers.
Washington County continues to implement service delivery changes in order to minimize costs.
However, in recent years,the state has eased its own fiscal problems by shifting certain costs and
responsibilities to the counties.
The combination of passing on costs,and inadequate increases in county aid to pay for increased costs to
provide mandated services,is eroding the few county services that serve the public at large. These factors,
when taken together, are significantly impairing our ability to maintain and expand our core services
during a period of increasing population and changing demographics,and the corresponding pressure for
citizen and safety net services.
Counties have identified many mandated services that could be repealed, reformed or funded. For
example,the state could eliminate the county share of certain state court costs,reduce the mental health
services maintenance of effort, eliminate recently adopted increases in the county cost share for many
human service programs, and eliminate costly requirements for publications of county financial
information and instead allow for web publication.
Support and Opposition:
Support will come from other counties and other local governments that seek mandate relief. Opposition
may come from those that support mandates.
Previous Consideration:
The county has advocated this position for many years.
No Action:
Counties will continue to be responsible for new, unfunded mandates that will likely result in increasing
pressure on local property taxpayers.
4
Financial Implications:
County levy increases are likely to be larger than otherwise necessary if the state and federal governments
would fully fund the costs of mandated services.
Contact Persons:
Molly O'Rourke,Administrator Kevin Corbid, Deputy Administrator
Washington County Washington County
651-430-6003 651-430-6002
Molly.O'Rourke@co.washineton mn us Kevin.Corbidt@co.washineton.mn.us
5
STATE FUNDING FOR SAFETY NET SERVICES
Position:
Washington County supports ensuring adequate state funding for essential health and human service
safety net programs without shifts in funding from the state budget to the county property taxpayers.
Issue:
Year after year the Minnesota Legislature balances the State budget by shifting safety net costs to
counties. In recent years those shifts have come in the form of increases to the county share of residential
costs at state-run safety net institutions. One significant problem is that these actions are often taken in
the wee hours of the legislative session as legislators finalize budgets in conference committees
opposition may come from.
Support and Opposition:
Minnesota Counties are united in their opposition to these ongoing cost shifts.The Minnesota Association
of County Social Service Administrators, Minnesota Inter-County Association, and the Association of
Minnesota Counties support the position. Human service advocacy organizations that are focused on
getting their legislative agenda included in the final legislation and are not concerned about who is paying
the bill and the regressive nature of the property tax system.
Previous Consideration:
The issue has been indirectly referenced in the county position on taxpayer protection. It does parallel a
long-standing county position opposing maintenance of effort requirements. Counties have not had
success eliminating those over the years, despite very compelling arguments that they are an antiquated
means of funding important core services that seriously interfere with innovation and good practice.
No Action:
Counties will be forced to continue to raise property taxes which are not predicated on people's ability to
pay in order to pay for services that should be included in the state safety net budget.
Financial Implications:
County Human Services Cost Shares:
• Minnesota Security Hospital,St. Peter
o Counties responsible for 10%of the daily cost
o Counties responsible for 50%of the cost for the Transitional Program
• Forensic Nursing Home,St. Peter
o Counties responsible for 10%of the daily cost
o Counties responsible for 50% of cost when the individual no longer requires program
(note: counties have no say as to when this decision occurs, nor are there suitable
community options available)
• Community Behavioral Health Homes(CBHH):
o Counties responsible for 100%of cost for individuals who are determined by the State to
no longer meet medical criteria for placement
• Community Restoration (to determine competency to stand trial):
o Counties responsible for 20%of the daily cost while deemed medically necessary.
o Counties responsible for 50%of the daily cost when individual no longer requires program
services
o Counties responsible for 100%of the daily cost if charges are dropped.
6
• Minnesota Sex Offender Program
o Counties responsible for 10% of daily cost prior to August 1, 2011. 25% for any new
individuals after August 1,2011.
The fiscal notes for these shifts are a moving target for counties as they depend on utilization. However
the annual cost is significant and county control over them is minimal.
Proposal Contact Persons:
Kathy Mickelson,Adult Services Manager
Washington County Community Services,Stillwater MN
651-430-6532
Kathy.Mickelson 0co.washington.mn us
Michelle Kemper, Deputy Director
Washington County Community Services,Stillwater MN
651-430-6474
Michelle.Kemper(cDco.washineton mn us
7
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS FUNDING
Position:
Washington County supports increasing state funding for supervision of offenders in the community each
year of the biennium at a rate equal to or greater than the cost of inflation.
Issue:
The burden for funding Community Corrections continues to shift towards counties due to the lack of
additional state funding. This shift has occurred while at the same time saving the state money by keeping
prison use low.
Washington County has participated in the Community Corrections Act since 1978. State funding for
Community Corrections came from a belief in the effectiveness of local services,and the opportunity for
the State to save money on prison beds. By encouraging counties to develop alternatives the hope was
that more offenders would be sentenced to local alternatives and not sent to prison. That is why the
Community Corrections Act Subsidy exists for counties.
Eighty five percent of probation services in Minnesota are delivered at the county level. Year after year
Governors' budgets fail to include adequate funding for probation to counties. We are grateful for the
modest increase in funding for state fiscal year 2016;however,no new money was included for state fiscal
2017. This left Washington County to pick-up 100 percent of the new costs for 2017. According to
Minnesota Management and Budget's February 2016 forecast, inflation is estimated to be 2.7 percent in
2018 and 2019.
Support and Opposition:
The Minnesota Association of Community Corrections Act Counties (MACCAC), the Minnesota Inter-
County Association (MICA), and the Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC) all support increased
funding for community supervision. The Minnesota Department of Corrections has demonstrated limited
support for funding Community Corrections.
Previous Consideration:
As has often been the case,the Governor failed to ask the Legislature for any increased funding for county
community corrections services in his proposed budget for state fiscal 2017.
No Action:
Counties will continue to assume a larger financial responsibility for funding community corrections from
the levy.
Contact Person:
Tom Adkins, Director
Community Corrections
651-430-6902
Tom.Adkins0co.washineton.mn.us
8
STATE FUNDING FOR MINNESOTA ELIGIBILITY TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM (METS)
IMPROVEMENTS
Position:
Washington County advocates for sufficient funding in the 2018-2019 biennium in order to make
substantial and rapid improvements to METS so that county staff can effectively, efficiently and reliably
serve clients.At least$10 million for each year of the coming biennium is needed to achieve significant
improvement and efficiencies in METS.This state appropriation would bring in approximately$100
million in matching federal funds for each year of the biennium.
Issue:
Counties provide eligibility determinations and ongoing management services for over:L million
Minnesotans enrolled in Medical Assistance.The inefficiencies in existing METS functionality have
resulted in extensive labor-intensive manual workarounds and poor customer service.At the same time,
280,000 additional individuals receiving Medical Assistance are being migrated from the aging legacy
computer system into METS.
Because METS does not function well,counties have been forced to add staff to meet workload
demands.As of 2017,the projected total cost of these staffing increases will be over$27 million
statewide per year.The current state budget level for METS is mostly for maintenance and repair; it
does not include adequate funding for the development of new or additional functionality, nor achieve
progress in the efficiency gains needed to remove the cumbersome manual processes currently
implemented in response to functionality issues.
Support and Opposition:
Counties are united in their support for improving METS functionality.The Minnesota Inter-County
Association,the Association of Minnesota Counties,and the Minnesota Association of County Social
Service Administrators are all expected to support METS improvements this legislative session.
Opposition to adequately funding METS may come from legislators who do not want to spend more
money on the system and/or favor a different approach.
Previous consideration:
N/A
No Action:
Counties will continue to manage Medical Assistance cases in an inefficient manner due to inadequate
system functionality, at a higher cost to county tax payers as a result of staff additions needed to
manage the work.
Financial Implications:
Counties have added significant staffing resources in the last several years to compensate for system
limitations,which will cost Minnesota counties over$27 million statewide in 2017.Although counties
receive state and federal funding to administer the Medical Assistance program,approximately 50%of
those costs are born by counties.
9
Proposal Contact Persons:
Linda Bixby, Economic Support Division Manager
Washington County Community Services,Stillwater, MN
651-430-6472
Linda.Bixby co.washineton.mn.us
Michelle Kemper, Interim Director
Washington County Community Services,Stillwater, MN
651-430-6474
Michelle.Kemper(@co.washington.mn.us
10
TRANSITWAY DEVELOPMENT IN THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA
Position:
Washington County supports the State Legislature implementing additional new revenue needed for the
development and construction of transit in the metropolitan area.
Issue:
The process for developing transitways in the region relies on local initiatives and funding, under the
framework of the Metropolitan Council's vision and plans. In 2008 the Legislature created the Counties
Transit Improvement Board (CTIB), which is comprised of member counties, currently Anoka, Hennepin,
Ramsey, Washington, and Dakota. CTIB has developed a long-term vision for transitway expansion that
supplements Metropolitan Council's regional vision for transit. To support this vision, the counties
implemented a self-imposed 0.25%sales and use tax and a $20 motor vehicle excise tax that generates
approximately$115 million per year for transitway expansion(capital and operations).The purpose of the
CTIB is to collect these sales tax funds, and to grant those funds to transitway projects in the Twin Cities
area. The CTIB funds transitway projects that meet eligibility criteria established through its Transit
Investment Framework and that are found to be consistent with the regional long-range transit plan
established by the Metropolitan Council.
Financial analysis indicates that current revenue sources will not be sufficient to fully construct the
Metropolitan Council vision for transit,nor the CTIB long-term vision for transitway expansion. Additional
funding will be necessary to plan and construct these regional improvements. Because these
improvements are regional in nature, Washington County believes additional revenue for transit and
transitway expansion should be implemented by the State of Minnesota and revenue for transitway
expansion directed to CTIB for distribution and implementation.
Support and Opposition:
Supported by the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)and the Minnesota Transportation Alliance.
The county would need to work with the Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC) and the Minnesota
Inter-county Association (MICA)to develop strong regional support for this proposal.
No Action:
If the proposal is not enacted, the metropolitan area will not have sufficient funding to implement the
transit vision.
Financial Implications:
Sustainable revenue sources need to be identified. The financial implications depend on the source of
funding.
Contact Person:
Jan Lucke,Transit/Transportation Planning Manager
Washington County Public Works
651-430-4316
ian.lucke@co.washineton.mn.us
11
GATEWAY GOLD LINE BUS RAPID TRANSIT
Position:
The Washington County Regional Railroad Authority(WCRRA) is requesting$3 million in state funds for
engineering, environmental analysis, and preparation of an application to seek Federal Transit
Administration (FTA)funds.
Issue:
The Gateway Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit depends on State funding to continue development. This
transitway is critical to providing east metro residents a public transportation option. Respondents to the
2015 Washington County Residential surrey scored "availability of public transportation" as the lowest
rated characteristic of Washington County.
By 2030 communities along the corridor will grow by 40%and add more than 60,000 jobs.Every day more
than 90,000 vehicles crossover the St.Croix River. By the time a commuter reaches downtown Saint Paul,
the number of vehicles increases to 150,000. The project will create new, consistent, and all-day service
within a dedicated guideway, in conjunction with existing express service. This will provide connections
to key destinations, improve mobility,provide a cost-effective solution,promote economic development,
and preserve community quality of life.
In 2017, Gateway Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit will transition to the State to complete the project
development phase of work,which includes completion of an environmental assessment and preliminary
engineering(approximately 30%design).This will take approximately two years to complete.
Support and Opposition:
Support has come from the Gateway Corridor Commission;the Woodbury,Oakdale,and St.Paul business
chambers;the Metropolitan Council;the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB), East Metro Strong,
and others associated with the implementation of multi-modal transportation options. In addition, at a
press conference in Woodbury on September 1,2016,Governor Dayton announced he would include the
$3 million state funding request in his 2017 bonding bill. In addition to the support of Governor Dayton,
this project also enjoys bipartisan support from area legislators. Opposition may come from those
opposed to expansion of transit in the region.
Previous Consideration:
The WCRRA requested $5 million in state bond funds in 2014 for this work and was awarded $2 million.
The WCRAA requested the balance of$3 million in 2015 and 2016. This amount was not awarded. This
request for the balance of$3 million is still needed to fully fund the next phase of work.
No Action:
The next phase requires approval from the FTA. The FTA will not grant approval until the state share of
funding is committed to the project. If the request is not met,work will be delayed.The annual cost of a
project delay is$15 million.
Financial Implications:
Allocation of$3 million in state funds for preliminary engineering would go towards the state's 10%overall
share.
Contact Person:
Jan Lucke,Transit/Transportation Planning Manager
Washington County Public Works
651-430-4316
Jan.Lucke@co.washineton.mn.us
12
NEW BUS ROUTE 363
(RED ROCK CORRIDOR PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION)
Position:
The Washington County Regional Railroad Authority (WCRRA) supports funds for a three-year
demonstration of a new bus route (Route 363) that would provide all-day, bi-directional bus service
between Saint Paul and Cottage Grove.
Issue:
The existing transit service in the Red Rock corridor is peak period express service designed for downtown
workers with 9 am—5 pm work schedules. New Route 363 would provide all-day service every 30 minutes
in both directions between St. Paul and Cottage Grove, expanding multimodal travel options in this
corridor.
All day local service will allow people whose travel needs are not met with peak-period, peak direction
express service to complete trips on transit. Examples include workers within the corridor during
traditional and non-traditional work shift times, reverse-commuters, and people making school, human
service, social and recreational trips. Local stops within the corridor will also increase access for people
currently unable to use the park-and-ride based commuter-express service, including those with limited
access to an automobile.
Support and Opposition:
Support comes from the Red Rock Corridor Commission,Metro Transit and East Metro Strong. Opposition
may come from those opposed to expansion of transit in the region.
Previous Consideration:
Through the Red Rock Corridor Implementation Plan,county and city partners have conducted a thorough
investigation of transit needs in the corridor. The plan is a phased approach with a near-term need for
new local bus service and a long-term need for bus rapid transit that includes high-frequency service,
robust stations and enhanced parking facilities.
Washington County collaborated with Metro Transit to submit a Regional Solicitation Transit Expansion
application in July 2016 to fund the purchase of four buses and operate new, local bus service in Red Rock
Corridor between St. Paul and Cottage Grove in the amount of $7,382,834. This application was not
funded.
No Action:
Without action the transit needs of the southeastern Twin Cities region will not be met and there will be
no all day, bi-directional bus service in the Red Rock Corridor.
Financial Implications:
Sustainable revenue sources need to be identified to extend the life of the project beyond demonstration.
The financial implications depend on the source of funding and the plan developed.
Contact Person:
Jan Lucke,Transit/Transportation Planning Manager
Washington County Public Works
651-430-4316
Jan.Lucke @co.washington.mn us
13
EXPANDING THE REGIONAL TRANSIT CAPITAL AREA IN THE TWIN CITIES
METROPOLITAN AREA
Position:
Washington County supports expansion of the Regional Transit Capital area to include the entire seven-
county metropolitan area to provide the Metropolitan Council with funding for transit capital
improvement.
Issue:
The Metropolitan Council is the planning agency for the seven-county metropolitan area and as a result,
is responsible for developing the regional vision for transit. The Regional Transit Capital (RTC) area,
formerly the Transit Taxing District, was established in the 1970's to provide the Metropolitan Council
with property tax funding for transit capital improvements.Communities placed into the RTC were chosen
based on the original Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary. Since the 1970's the Twin Cities has
added nearly 975,000 people with little change to the RTC boundary. Expansion of the RTC area will more
accurately reflect the current urbanized area and the area benefiting from transit and will coincide with
the boundaries of the Metropolitan Council.The current taxing district boundaries do not equitably share
the cost of providing transit services in the metropolitan region.
Support and Opposition:
The county would need to work with the Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC) and the Minnesota
Inter-county Association (MICA)to develop strong regional support for this proposal.
Previous Consideration:
County Board Position for several years.
No Action:
If the proposal is not enacted, the metropolitan area will not have sufficient funding to implement the
transit vision and the current inequities will continue.
Financial Implications:
Sustainable revenue sources need to be identified. The financial implications depend on the source of
funding.
Contact Person:
Jan Lucke,Transit/Transportation Planning Manager
Washington County Public Works
651-430-4316
Jan.Lucke co.washineton.mn us
14
FREIGHT RAIL
Position:
Washington County supports increased state funding for the rehabilitation, preservation and
improvement of rail lines, including short haul lines and rail safety, with the goal of maintaining and
improving needed freight service,and supporting safe crossings.
Issue:
Rail service is an important component of a balanced transportation system. Rail can improve the
efficiency of our entire transportation system; one rail freight car can carry the equivalent of four truck
loads and can carry a ton of cargo 480 miles on one gallon of fuel.
Rail infrastructure is both ageing and lacking modern safety features at many locations. Washington
County is home to seven rail lines owned by five railroad companies.
1. BNSF Railway
2. Canadian Pacific
3. Union Pacific
4. Wisconsin Central
S. Minnesota Commercial
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) released a legislatively mandated freight rail
safety report on Dec.31,2014. Recommended crossing improvement projects are in Big Lake, Clear Lake,
Elk River (two sites), Perham, St. Cloud, St. Paul Park, Wadena, and Winona. Other projects requiring
additional funding are also recommended, including grade separations.All recommendations for specific
crossings improve public safety by reducing the risk of train-vehicle accidents. These improvements are
important as much of the freight moving through the county is volatile crude oil. Washington County
supports state funding for improved rail crossing safety as well as additional funding for grade separations
between roads and rails at busy intersections.
As rail infrastructure continues to age, the cost to rehabilitate can exceed available resources for short-
haul line owners and operators. These lines provide an important service and boost the local economy.
Washington County supports state funding, grants, and loans to develop these improvements.
Additionally, improvements to freight rail lines can also benefit passenger rail service, using the same
tracks.
Support and Opposition:
Supported by the Association of Minnesota Counties(AMC).
No Action:
If the proposal is not enacted, rail safety and capacity needs will remain unmet.
Financial Implications:
Sustainable revenue sources need to be identified. The financial implications depend on the source of
funding.
Contact Person:
Wayne Sandberg,County Engineer& Deputy Public Works Director
Washington County Public Works
651-430-4339
Wayne.Sandbere(cDco.washineton.mn us
15
SUPPORT FOR A STUDY OF THE 1-94/494/694 SYSTEM INTERCHANGE
Position:
Washington County supports the allocation of funding to the Minnesota Department of Transportation to
perform a feasibility study to develop a strategic plan and determine improvements needed to the 1-
94/494/694 System Interchange area,to include the system interchange itself,and adjacent interchanges
of 1-94&Radio Drive/Inwood Ave, 1-94&Century Ave, 1-694& 10th Street and 1-494&Tamarack Road.
Issue:
The 1-94 Corridor in the east metro is a vital link between the Twin Cities to Chicago and the East Coast.
This interchange is the second most traveled in the State and due to the outdated cloverleaf design,
experiences congestion as vehicles merge and weave across multiple lanes. Additionally,the design does
not accommodate the significant amount of freight traffic that uses it.
In 2019 MnDOT proposes to implement bridge preservation and mobility improvements. The design will
improve the mobility and safety of the weave section between the loops and the southbound 494/694
freeway through lanes. However, this is a short term solution and does not solve the fundamental
problem of the outdated cloverleaf design that is not adequate to serve the demands of a growing and
vibrant east metro area.
The study should develop a strategic plan and determine improvements needed to develop an
interchange that will eliminate congestion, and provide safe and efficient movement of vehicles and
freight. The study should include and evaluate traffic volumes including heavy vehicle volumes and
classifications, current hours of congestion, impacts and barriers to freight movement, traffic safety,
development potential and impacts to economic development,coordination with Gateway Corridor Gold
Line planning,and impacts to adjacent interchange operations.
Support and Opposition:
Supported by the Washington and Ramsey Counties, City of Woodbury, City of Oakdale. Potential
opposition from various state agencies.
No Action:
If the proposal is not enacted, the 2019 project will be completed with no strategic vision for the future
of this interchange.
Financial Implications:
Sustainable revenue sources need to be identified. The financial implications depend on the source of
funding and the plan developed.
Contact Person:
Wayne Sandberg,County Engineer&Deputy Public Works Director
Washington County Public Works
651-430-4339
Wayne.SandbergCcDco.washington mn us
16
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR SOLID WASTE PROCESSING
Position:
Washington County supports legislation that will provide additional state funding or incentives to counties
that are providing or financially supporting waste processing, thus exceeding objectives for landfill
diversion.
Issue:
Washington County has historically developed and implemented an integrated waste management
system which recovers valuable materials and energy from waste rather than landfilling. Together with
our partner, Ramsey County,we have purchased the Ramsey/Washington Recycling and Energy Center,a
waste-to-energy processing facility in Newport, MN, thus renewing our commitment to these
longstanding efforts. These actions achieve all of the objectives of the Minnesota Waste Management
Hierarchy and the Metropolitan Solid Waste Policy Plan.
While all Minnesota Counties received funding from the State Waste Management Tax (SWMT) in the
form of SCORE Grants,there are few incentives to exceed state standards or provide innovative planning,
programming and regulatory services. The SCORE funds are allocated to Counties based on a formula
made up of a base amount and the balance of the appropriated funds based on population. Counties,
such as Washington County, that make significant financial investments in solid waste management
practices which promote the state hierarchy should be rewarded beyond the basic formula for SCORE
funding.
Several State and Regional studies, plans and other documents support the development of financial
incentives for improved solid waste management.
• 2014 Office of Legislative Auditor Report
• 2011-2030 Regional Solid Waste Master Plan
• Dec. 2011,Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board
• 2015 Solid Waste Policy Report
In a letter to County Commissioner Gary Kriesel from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Assistant Commissioner Kirk Koudelka, dated September 21, 2015, he states, "The MPCA acknowledges
the need to address each of the counties contributions to reaching the goals. The MPCA will examine
possible incentives for Counties that are exceeding objectives for landfr/l diversion. The MPCA also
intends to continue to measure the region as a whole, while holding individual counties accountable for
their decisions."
Support and Opposition:
• Ramsey County would likely support this initiative as their actions are the same or similar to those
of Washington County.
• Hennepin County would likely support this initiative as their facility results in landfill diversion.
• MPCA has indicated its willingness to research,develop and support incentives for improved solid
waste management practices.
• The Office of Legislative Auditor (OLA) report also included recommendations for incentives to
the Legislature.
17
Some Counties that are not actively processing waste and/or are operating and supportive of landfills may
be opposed. Some waste haulers may oppose this if the resulting method of incentive might increase
their cost of services or develop some form of competitive advantage to haulers that use waste to energy
facilities.
Previous Consideration:
The County Board advocated this position last year.
No Action:
If no action is taken, lack of equity among County Solid Waste Management programs and services will
continue to exist. Washington County taxpayers currently subsidize taxpayers in other Counties in the
Metropolitan Region, as other Counties benefit from regional solid waste accomplishments without
making system investments comparable to Washington County.
Financial Implications: In 2017,Washington County will collect and spend approximately$4.4 million on
Waste Processing.
Proposal Contact Persons:
Lowell Johnson, Director Judy Hunter,Senior Program Manager
Public Health and Environment Public Health and Environment
651-430-6725 651-430-4031
Lowe ll.Johnson@co.washineto n.mn.us Judy.Hunter@co.washineton.mn.us
18
SUPPORT LESSARD SAMS OUTDOOR HERITAGE COUNCIL FUNDING FOR THE
CARNELIAN CREEK CONSERVATION CORRIDOR PROPOSAL
Position:
Washington County supports $2.458 million in Lessard Sams Outdoor Heritage Council (LSOHC) funding
to protect 73S acres of high quality wildlife habitat in in the Carnelian Creek Conservation Corridor in May
Township.
Issue:
The LSOHC has the responsibility of providing annual funding recommendations to the legislature from
the Outdoor Heritage Fund. The Outdoor Heritage Fund is one of four funds created by the Clean Water,
Land and Legacy Amendment and is funded from a 1/8%sales tax. The LSOHC recommended the project
for funding on September 29, 2016. Final approval of state funds is provided by the 2017 legislature.
The Carnelian Creek Conservation Corridor proposal would protect through conservation easement over
10 miles of shoreline on Terrapin, Mays and Clear Lakes and 735 acres of forests,wetlands and grasslands
that provide critical habitat, and promote biodiversity and expand wildlife connections for more than 70
species in the greatest conservation need. The state funding will match a county contribution from its
Land and Water Legacy program and a significant land owner donation of value.
Support and Opposition:
The Washington Conservation District and May Township have both provided letters of support for the
project. Support is also likely from a number of other organizations that have participated in stakeholder
meetings on the project over the past year, including the Trust for Public Land, the Minnesota Food
Association, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Conservation Corp, and
others. No local opposition is expected.
Previous Consideration:
The County Board has held five workshops related to this project, with the first workshop occurring on
August 4, 2015 and the most recent in June of 2016. Board approval was given to develop the project,to
fund an appraisal and submit the state funding application.
No Action:
If the state funds are not provided for this project to match the county and landowner contributions,the
project will either not proceed, or will be scaled back significantly. If the project does not go forward,
there is a potential for this property in May Township to be developed and not protected.
Financial Implications:
The county would utilize its Land and Water Legacy Program funding to provide a match for the state
funds. If this project is approved,the state funding and landowner donation could equal roughly 60-65%
of the project total cost.
Contact Person:
Kevin Corbid, Deputy Administrator
Office of Administration
651-430-6003
Kevin.Corbid@co.washineton.mn.us
19
i1 `
�7-777'
WHAT IS THE CARNELIAN CREEK CONSERVATION CORRIDOR PROPOSAL?
This first phase of the Carnelian Creek Habitat Corridor Program aims to protect 735 acres of
Carnelian ` high quality wildlife habitat in the east metro area with a conservation easement. It will
Creek I protect 10 miles of shoreline on Terrapin, Mays and Clear lakes and 735 acres of forests,
wetlands and grasslands that provide critical habitat,promote biodiversity and expand
Conservation wildlife connections to the St Croix River for more than 70 Species in Greatest Conservation
Need. This project is a partnership of the Outdoor Heritage Fund, Minnesota Land Trust,
Corridor: Washington County and Warner Nature Center.
Phase I
HOW DOES THE PROPOSAL SUPPORT STATE GOALS?
This project reflects a number of goals outlined in the Statewide Conservation and
Preservation Plan,Tomorrow's Habitat for the Wild and Rare Plan and Washington County's
Washington County Land and Water Legacy Program.Specifically,we aim to address these goals by:
is Minnesota's ❖ Protecting critical ❖ Protecting one of the ❖ Targeting a unique
oldest county lakes, shorelines, largest remaining landscape that has
located in the east bogs,wetlands forests in the metro historical value to fish,
metro area. area game and wildlife
Warner Nature
Center is the oldest '
Nature Center in
Minnesota located `"4`"
.M
in the Town of May
in northern '
Washington County.
The Minnesota Land WHAT ARE THE OUTCOMES OF THE PROGRAM?
Trust is a nationally- • Protected wildlife habitat for more than 70 Species in Greatest Conservation Need
accredited
conservation • Protected aquatic habitat and water quality of the watershed
organization with a . Diverse forest habitat protected from development and fragmentation
twenty-year history • Increased participation of private landowners in habitat projects
of protecting
Minnesota's most • Protect prior public investment in shoreland and forest conservation in the area
unique wildlife
habitats around the
state.
For more
information, please
contact MLT's Wmilhig1ton Wayne Ostlie, % /
%
Director of Land County MINNESOTA
Protection at
651-917-6192 LAND TRUST
20
rr��
,fit».if �_ : RM-' 7. ,._
t_
Pro osed C amelias Creek Cousen-atlnll Corridor Ea.selnellt
V himer&Wfider Properties
e ati ( �,, , �'�KaemCmfrrBuldinlFxeIusoa
7` �B N
Na'aOQtV7�1G!CmtCf j.1Od�+8 iCRi�
6• a � , k r ,.� ,� , M.,�, Ya� �� �' 1�31derFcrext�d(-58�1CR9)
0
e gyp^ »
. y
y
«. Easement Iotal,acreage^^735 a4:i F
a r4 Tutsl Slrorelinr Protected--S�.00G fret ,,
,
F.Ts
t� w,
q n Imo• 41 f '
Miles
The more than 2,700 acre Carnellan This more than$10 million project aims to leverage$5.2 million
Creek Corridor Priority Conservation from the Outdoor Heritage Fund and a non-state match from
Area is a mosaic of lake, wetland Washington County and Warner Nature Center.
and upland community types
connecting Big Marine,Mud, Turtle, v
Long,Staples, Northern Terrapin, ,
Southern Terrapin, Mays, Clear, East
Boot, West Boot, Bass and Bigg
Carnelian lakes. ' ° W2 .
� u
It contains aspen-oak land, oak
openings and barrens, Big Woods
(oak, maple,basswood,hickory),
wet prairies, conifer bogs and 11
swamps, and open water lakes. 1 -
The corridor is a host to Blandings
1 Turtle,the Common Snapping +
Turtle, Eastern Fox, Milk Snake, Red- m
shouldered Hawk, Bald Eagle, Rose-
Breasted Grosbeak and American
Woodcock.
21
RED ROCK CROSSING TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT
Position:
Washington County supports the Washington County Community Development Agency(CDA)request for
a special law which waives certain provisions to Red Rock Crossing Tax Increment Financing(TIF) districts
within the City of Newport.
Issue:
The Red Rock Crossing area is approximately 188 acres located in the City of Newport, south of 1-494,
north of 15th Street between the Mississippi River and Highway 61.The Washington County CDA and the
City of Newport are working together under a Joint Powers Agreement to redevelop the Red Rock Crossing
area and build on the County's transit investments. Red Rock Crossing has had and continues to have
extensive impediments to redevelopment.The municipal vision for the area is to develop approximately
60,000 square feet of commercial, office and light industrial uses and over 460 units of various types of
housing. The current market value of the area is approximately $6.1 million and if the municipal vision
became a reality,the market value is estimated to be in excess of$98.9 million.
The issue is that the cost of the relocation,demolition,site preparation,mass grading,installation of public
utilities, streets and sidewalks are in excess of the value of the property. The problem is compounded
because the redevelopment will take at least 10 to 15 years to develop while a substantial amount of the
costs must be incurred at its inception.In addition,to maximize density and market value some structured
parking may be necessary.
These redevelopment activities and public infrastructure improvements are expected to cost$14 million.
A portion of these expenses will be reimbursed by selling the developable parcels to private developers.
In addition,tax increment financing is crucial to help fill the remaining estimated$6.3 million gap.
Minnesota statutes related to tax increment financing districts are ideally suited to development that
proceed on a relatively short timeline and may involve only one or two buildings. Based on a recent
market study and current lending requirements, private sector development plans may not be able to
correlate to the legal timeframes currently prescribed. Second, it is anticipated that developments will
occur in many phases spanning more than a decade.
Many communities have obtained special laws related to tax increment financing to facilitate comparable
redevelopment projects. The proposed special law would provide greater flexibility in the timelines
associated with creating districts and the start of tax increment collection, facilitate site assembly, and
allow for more flexible use of TIF funding.
Support and Opposition:
Supported by the Washington County CDA and the City of Newport.
Previous Consideration:
The special law was proposed in the 2016 legislation session but was held over in the respective tax
committees.
22
No Action:
If the proposal is not enacted, tax increment may be limited to repay the redevelopment expenses
incurred by the CDA unless redevelopment adheres to the existing rules and laws.
Financial Implications:
The tax increment financing is crucial to help fill the estimated $6.3 million gap in the Red Rock Crossing
redevelopment budget.
Contact Person:
Barbara Dacy, Executive Director
Washington County Community Development Agency
(651)458-6556
bdacv(@wchra.com
23
TAX FORFEITED LAND CONVEYANCE
Position:
Washington County supports legislation authorizing the sale of this parcel to the County for market value.
Issue:
Parcel 32.032.20.33.0001 in the City of Scandia forfeited to the State of Minnesota in 1938. The forfeited
land parcel is approximately.41 acres and includes approximately 277.6 feet of waterfront on Big Marine
Lake. The parcel is adjacent to Big Marine Park Reserve and is not accessible by road. Washington County
desires to include this property in the Big Marine Park Reserve to protect the property and allow public
enjoyment of the property. Minnesota statute requires the sale of tax forfeited land with 150 feet or
more of waterfront to be authorized by special legislation.
w ,
NSR
2
w !w
01,
a
A 1Y i • d^ 4
n
v
a.
Support and Opposition:
The City of Scandia does not desire this parcel. The county contacted the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) and the DNR indicated that they would not object to special legislation
authorizing the sale of this parcel to Washington County.
Previous Consideration:
None
No Action:
If no action is taken the parcel will continue to be an administrative burden and unavailable for public use
or enjoyment.
24
Financial Implications:
Acquisition costs are dependent on the market value set by the county board after the legislation is
passed. The typical market value set by the county board for vacant parcels authorized for sale to local
municipalities is approximately$1,000 an acre. In addition to acquisition costs there are administrative
fees of approximately$100.
Contact Persons:
Jennifer Wagenius, Director
Property Records and Taxpayer Services
651-430-6182
Jennifer.Waeenius co washinp,ton mn us
Wayne H Sandberg P.E.,County Engineer&Deputy Director
Public Works
651-430-4339
Wayne.Sandbere(cDco washinizton mn us
25
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES - WHITE BEAR LAKE
LAWSUIT
Position:
Washington County adopted the Washington County Groundwater Plan 2014-2024 in September of 2014.
This plan specifically calls to monitor the outcome of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) lawsuit and evaluate how the final disposition will impact groundwater management decisions in
the county. Washington County does not support the White Bear Lake Settlement Agreement as it
currently stands for the following reasons:
• The DNR does not agree that science supports the plaintiffs'theory that groundwater pumping is
the primary cause of low water levels in White Bear Lake; however in the settlement agreement
the DNR has agreed to support action, at great expense, to convert groundwater-supplied
communities to a surface water supply.
• A second study by the United States Geological Survey to analyze which groundwater wells,if any,
may have the greatest impact on White Bear Lake is still pending.
• The impact on surface water sustainability is not addressed and should be studied before such
drastic and costly actions are mandated.
• The financial implications of the settlement agreement need to be addressed as actions mandated
in the settlement will affect economic development. The affected communities have been
planning for growth as directed by the Metropolitan Council, investing millions of dollars in
groundwater-based water supply infrastructure.
• The settlement agreement instructs the DNR to work with the 13 communities to implement
conservation efforts.Groundwater is a regional issue and reduction goals should be shared across
the aquifer.
• An aggregate goal of at least seventeen percent reduction in water use was set without disclosing
how the target goal was calculated.
• The settlement addresses the North and East Groundwater Management Area (GWMA), stating
the DNR agrees the entire North and East GWMA should use surface water instead of
groundwater. This decision is not based on fact or data. The studies to support this claim have
not been completed. The DNB's North and East GWMA Plan is awaiting final approval from the
DNR commissioner.
Issue:
In the past several years,White Bear Lake's water levels have been at the lower end of their historic range.
Experts disagree about the fundamental causes of the low levels. The Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources(DNR) was sued in Ramsey County District Court in 2012 (Court File No. 62-CV-13-2414), with
the plaintiffs (White Bear Lake Restoration Association and White Bear Lake Homeowners' Association)
claiming that, by allowing thirteen local communities to use groundwater for their public water supply,
the DNR has permitted too much groundwater use in the area,thus lowering White Bear Lake.Two of the
thirteen communities (City of White Bear Lake and White Bear Township) elected to intervene in the
litigation. The plaintiffs asked the judge to set a lake water elevation, reduce local communities'
groundwater use,and require the agency to augment the lake with an additional water supply.
26
The lawsuit was settled through mediation between the DNR and the plaintiffs and halted litigation for up
to three years.The DNR and the two local communities who intervened, provided legislative support for
a two phased option identified in the Met Council's June 2014 Draft Water Feasibility Report to move
thirteen communities from groundwater and to surface water from the Mississippi River for their public
water supply.The first phase of the project(Phase 1)would move six communities, including Mahtomedi
and a portion of White Bear Lake,for Washington County,to a surface water supply system.
An update from the plaintiffs, defendant, and interveners was provided to Judge Margaret Marrinan on
September 8, 2016. A legislative proposal to fully fund the feasibility and design of Phase I was not
approved by the August 1, 2016 settlement deadline.This lifted the three year stay in the lawsuit and a
March 6,2017 trial date has been scheduled.
Support and Opposition:
Four of the six"Phase I"communities, and several of the "Phase 11" communities are opposed to shifting
their communities from groundwater to surface water.
Previous Consideration:
The County Board first supported this platform in 2015.
No Action:
Need to be determined.
Financial Implications:
Need to be determined.
Contact Person:
Lowell Johnson, Director
Washington County Public Health and Environment
651-430-6725
Lowell.Johnson0co.washineton mn us
27
COUNTY COMMISSIONER APPOINTMENT
Position:
Washington County supports legislation that would allow, but not require, the county board to appoint
an interim county commissioner to serve until a special election can be held and a replacement elected.
Issue:
Under current law,when a vacancy occurs on the county board and there is more than one year remaining
on the unexpired term the county board must call for a special election and may not appoint an interim
commissioner. The statutory restrictions in scheduling a special election create the possibility for
vacancies on the county board of up to ten months in length. These vacancies leave large populations
unrepresented and place additional burdens on the remaining commissioners.
This legislative change would allow a county board to appoint an individual to serve as commissioner
between the period when the vacancy is declared and when an individual is elected at a special election
to fill the unexpired term. If only a short time exists between when the vacancy is created and the special
election,the county board would be unlikely to appoint a replacement. However, if a longer time period
exists, the county board may determine that representation of those county residents would be best
served by appointing an interim commissioner until a successor could be elected.
Support and Opposition:
Because this law change would not change the requirements to hold a special election and it is in rare
cases where this appointment option would be utilized, little to no opposition would be anticipated.
Support may come from other counties that have operated at fewer than the normal number of elected
officials because of a vacancy prior to the election of a successor.
Previous Consideration:
The County Board has not previously considered this legislation.
No Action:
If no action is taken unfilled vacancies will leave a portion of the county population unrepresented and
unreasonably burden existing commissioners.
Financial Implications:
Opportunities for county attendance at various boards and committees may be missed leaving the county
unrepresented in decisions of financial and operational importance to our residents.
Contact Persons:
Kevin Corbid, Deputy Administrator
Office of Administration
651-430-6003
Kevin.Corbid@co.washington.mn.us
Jennifer Wagenius, Director
Property Records and Taxpayer Services
651-430-6182
Jennifer.Waeenius co.washineton mn us
28
IN-PERSON ABSENTEE VOTING PROCEDURES
Position:
Washington County supports legislation that will allow an in-person absentee voter to place their ballot
directly into the ballot tabulator during the entire 46-day absentee voting period.
Issue:
During the 2016 legislative session provisions that allow early in-person voters to place their ballots
directly into the ballot tabulator during the seven days before the election were authorized. This
legislation substantially improves the voter experience and reduces administrative burden however it
creates a disparity between in-person absentee voters.
Voters casting their ballot in-person during the first 39 days of the absentee voting period are required to
use the more time consuming and expensive mail absentee ballot process which requires a minimum of
two envelopes,and an extensive manual process,that does not notify the voter of an error on their ballot.
Voters using this process have expressed unease about having their ballot envelopes placed in a locked
ballot box.
In-person absentee voters who vote during the last seven days before the election are allowed to place
their ballots directly into the ballot tabulator. Voters using the certified tabulator receive system
validation that their ballot was accepted without error or receive a message identifying errors and
allowing the voter to mark a replacement ballot.
Support and Opposition:
Opposition and support for changes to in-person absentee voting at the legislature has been mixed and
historically delineated by political party but that may be changing. Both major political parties actively
promoted absentee voting during the 2016 election.
Support for expansion of the in-person absentee ballot tabulator process will come from the Minnesota
Association of County Officers, Minnesota Office of the Secretary of State, and various voting rights
groups,though not all may agree on the length of time to allow this alternative procedure.
Previous Consideration:
The County Board actively supported the 2016 legislation allowing in-person voters to place their ballots
directly into the ballot tabulator during the seven days before the election.
No Action:
If no action is taken the in-person absentee voters will suffer disparate voter experiences,voter concerns
will not be addressed, and the administrative costs for absentee voting will continue to expand as the
popularity of absentee voting increases.
Financial Implications:
Allowing in-person absentee voters to place their ballots directly into the ballot counter rather than using
the supplies and procedures required for mail voting reduces costs per transaction over S09'o, improves
service, and notifies the voter of an error thereby allowing them to obtain a replacement ballot and have
their vote counted.
Contact Person:
Jennifer Wagenius, Director
Property Records and Taxpayer Services
651-430-6182
Jen nifer.wage nius co washineton mn us
29
SUPPORT INCREASED FUNDING FOR AQUATIC
INVASIVE SPECIES COUNTY AID
Position:
Washington County supports an increase in the state funding provided to counties to prevent the
introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species.
Issue:
In 2014,the Legislature approved the creation of a new county aid program to prevent the introduction
and spread of aquatic invasive species in our state's lakes, rivers, and streams. Annually $10 million is
appropriated and split amongst the 87 counties based on a formula that takes into account the number
of public water accesses and watercraft trailer parking spaces in each county.
Washington County has developed a competitive grant program to select projects to fund from its share
of the aid program. Projects funded include public awareness and planning activities, watercraft
inspections,and the control of Eurasian watermilfoil and flowering rush in a number of county lakes. The
county has required third-party monitoring of the control activities, and required all grantees to submit
detailed result reports in order to track the effectiveness and efficiency of the projects funded.
The county has partnered with the Washington Conservation District, local watershed districts,and many
local lake associations to carry out projects funded through the county aid program. The county funding
provided to the watershed districts and lake associations has grown in importance because of the
reduction in funding for these efforts by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Support and Opposition:
Support is likely to come from other Minnesota counties, the Washington Conservation District,
watershed districts,and local lake associations.
Previous Consideration:
In April of 2016, the County Board sent a letter to the county's legislative delegation thanking them for
providing the county aid to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species and
recommending additional funding in future years.
No Action:
The county will continue to provide grants to local partners to prevent the introduction and spread of
aquatic invasive species, but as the number of both public water accesses and watercraft trailer parking
spaces continue to increase statewide, Washington County's share of the $10 million in aid will likely
decrease.
Financial Implications:
In 2014, the first year of the program the county received $62,811 of the total $5 million available
statewide. Beginning in 2015,the statewide total increased to$10 million per year and the county share
in 2015 and 2016 was just more than $139,000 and the amount certified to be received in 2017 is just
more than$132,000.
Contact Persons:
Kevin Corbid, Deputy Administrator Colin Kelly,AICP
Office of Administration Senior Planner—Office of Administration
651-430-6003 651-430-6011
Kevin.Corbid@co.washington mn us Colin.KellvC@co.washington.mn.us
30
LOCAL WETLAND REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
Position:
Washington County is requesting $5 million of cash to be appropriated to the Board of Water and Soil
Resources to allow the purchase of wetland credits from private wetland banks to meet immediate Local
Road Wetland Replacement Program obligations.
Washington County is requesting $10 million in bonding authorization to BWSR to "recapitalize" its
wetlands banks to provide future replacement credits. Due to federal requirements, new, functioning
wetlands that generate the necessary wetland replacement credits take several years to create.
Issue:
The Local Road Wetland Replacement Program (LRWRP) has been an integral part of the "no net loss"
policy under the Wetlands Conservation Act(WCA)since 1996.
Under the WCA, the reconstruction or rehabilitation of existing county, city and township roads to meet
state or federal design or safety standards are exempt from wetland replacement requirements as long
as wetland impacts are minimized. The Board of Water and Soil Resources(BWSR) is required to replace
the wetlands lost as the result of the eligible local road reconstruction or rehabilitation.
BWSR's obligation to replace the wetlands lost due to the eligible local road projects has been historically
funded with the proceeds of GO bonds authorized in the biennial capital budget bills. Since 2010, the
state has not been meeting the funding obligation as requested by BWSR.
Year BWSR Capital Budget Governor's Appropriation
Request Recommendation
2010 $8,420,000 $4,200,000
$2,500,000
2012 $13,100,000 $0
2014 $5,400,000 $6,000,000
2016 $0 $2,000,000
$10,330,000 $5,000,000 $0
As a result of the underfunding, BWSR has provided notice that it will not provide wetland replacement
for LRWRP eligible projects in Washington County.
By next summer,eligible local road projects in most of the state will be effected. Ultimately,eligible local
road projects throughout the entire state will be delayed or shutdown. This is a statewide problem.
Local governments have not budgeted to step in to meet the state's legal obligation to replace the lost
wetlands and cannot legally increase 2017 property taxes to facilitate that even if they wanted to do so.
The Legislature needs to act immediately to meet the state's legal obligation to fund the replacement of
the affected wetlands and not make the already existing funding gaps for Minnesota local governments'
transportation infrastructure even worse.
Support and Opposition:
Support has come from the Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC), Minnesota Inter-County
Association (MICA). No major opposition is expected as this program, when functioning, is considered
one of the best examples of government streamlining in the State.
31
Previous Consideration:
None
No Action:
Currently,Washington County does not have access to wetland replacement credits through BWSR. The
inability to obtain credits will delay local road projects,and will increase costs for the delivery of our capital
improvement program.
Financial Implications:
Wetland replacement credits are available on the private market for$60,000 to$80,000 per acre. Project
delays are expected due to lack of BWSR credits. Delays increase project costs.
Contact Person:
Wayne Sandberg, County Engineer& Deputy Public Works Director
Washington County Public Works
651-430-4339
Wavne.Sandbere co.washineton mn us
32
SUGGESTED MANDATES FOR CONSIDERATION OF REPEAL OR REFORM
Mandate Statute Comments
Public Safety/Corrections
Eliminate 484.77 Allowing counties to charge a rental fee to cover the cost of building, maintaining,
Responsibility for operating, remodeling, insuring, and renovating facilities occupied by the court
County to would provide for accountability and transparency in government costs and
Provide Rent operations. Approximately$1,806,900 per year.
Free Space to
State Courts
K
e Court 484.52 The County Sheriff is required to provide state court security. Approximatelyurity $1,242,800 per year.
Eliminate State 480.181 The 1999 Legislature approved the transfer of responsibility for funding most, but
Court Costs Paid 480.1811 not all,trial court operations. Approximately$365,000 per year.
by Counties 480.182
Eliminate Shift 206C.331 Since the 1994 Public Defender takeover by the State of Minnesota,the courts have
of Public Subd. 3(d) regularly appointed public defenders to represent indigent parents in Children in
Defender Costs Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) and Termination of Parental Rights (TPR)
for Representing 260C.163 cases. Beginning in 2008, the state public defenders no longer accepted these
Parents in Subd. 3(b) cases, and when counsel was ordered by the court the costs were billed to the
CHIPS/TPR. county. In 2012 legislation was passed that codifies recent Supreme Court rulings
requiring counties to pay for the representation of adults in CHIPS/TPR
proceedings, if they are unable to financially provide for their own counsel. The
legislation did provide more authority for the county to develop contracts with
attorneys to provide these services. Options are being developed to control county
costs, but the costs would be more appropriately funded by the state through the
public defender's office. Approximately$75,000 per year.
Eliminate State 611.21 Public defender's offices can secure court orders to direct payments by counties
Court Authority for services other than counsel. This is not an expenditure the county has any
to Direct ability to control or estimate for budgeting purposes. Approximately$2,000 per
Payment by the year.
County for
Services Other
than Counsel for
Indigent
Defendants
Subtotal: $3,491,700
Human Services
Mental Health 245.4835 This was imposed by the Legislature out of concern that since the state was shifting
Maintenance of money from counties to health plans, counties would begin reducing their
Effort(MOE) investment in mental health. Approximately $5,370,700 per year of which
$3,750,700 is county responsibility.
33
Mandate I Statute Comments
Human Services(continued)
Commitment 246.54 Eliminate the county share for commitment treatment costs.
Treatment Costs
• 0-75% for individuals committed to State Operated Services facilities for
treatment of mental illness. Share is dependent on the length of stay. During
the 2013 legislative session, the county share of costs on stays over 30 days
increased from 50%to 75%. The county share for individuals committed to MN
Security Hospital also increased from 10%to 50%. Total cost of these areas is
approximately$389,200 per year.
• 10% for individuals committed prior to 8/1/2011 to State Operated Services
facilities for sex offender treatment. 25% for sex offender commitments
occurring after 8/1/2011. Approximately$158,000 per year.
County Share 25613.19 Currently, the state requires counties to pay the indicated portion of the
for Medical nonfederal share of medical assistance costs for stays in excess of 90 days in the
Assistance Costs following situations:
for Under 65,
Disabled Person • 10%for individuals placed in Intermediate Care Facilities (ICF)for the Mentally
Placed in Retarded(MR)of seven beds or more. Approximately$65,000 per year.
Nursing Homes
More than 90 • 10% for disabled individuals under age 65 placed in nursing homes.
Days,and for Approximately$185,000 per year.
Certain ICF/MR
Placements The state reneged on its commitment to pay all those costs when counties
surrendered homestead and agricultural credit aid on a dollar-for-dollar basis for
the state takeover of all income maintenance programs in the early 1990s. These
cuts in state funding, enacted in 2003, should be restored.
Detoxification 256G.06 Eliminate the requirement that the county be responsible for detoxification
Costs services. Approximately$128,OW levy per year.
Reform Chapter We are not asking for repeal of this statute, but requesting reform of the
Requirement 260C.451. requirement. It has been assumed by the state that local funds will provide funding
that Counties Subd. 1 for this new requirement, along with any available federal funds. Our request is
Provide Child (Effective that state funds need to be allocated to counties to fully fund the costs,minus any
Foster Care and August 1, federal funds,of this recently enacted state (and federal requirement).
Transition 2010)
Services for It is roughly estimated that this cost to Washington County will be approximately
Youth in Child (DHS $100,000 annually. The total amount of dollars needed is dependent on the
Foster Care from Bulletin utilization of this out-of-home care for this age group, transition services needed
age 18-21 #10-68-12, by the older youth, etc.
Sept.3,
2010)
34
Mandate Statute Comments
Human Services(continued)
County Match 11913.11, Eliminate or equalize the required county match for the Basic Sliding Fee (BSF)
and Maintenance Subd. 1 childcare program, which is currently equal to the calendar year 1996 required
of Effort and 4 contribution. The average statewide local match for BSF childcare is 3%, but some
Requirements for counties pay as much as 15%. Approximately$40,000 per year.
Child Care
Assistance
Commitment 256G.08 Eliminate the county share for sex offender hold costs.
Hold Costs for
Sex Offenders • 100% cost for holding sex offenders at State Operated Services facilities or jail
facilities, whichever the offender chooses to be held. Approximately$25,000
per year.
Ran7Drug256.01, In 2012 the Minnesota Legislature passed a law requiring the random drug testing
TestSubd. 18c of convicted drug felons who are receiving General Assistance (GA), Minnesota
ConSupplemental Aid (MSA), Diversionary Work Program (DWP), Minnesota Family
Investment Plan(MFIP)or Work Participation Benefits(WB). Counties are charged
with this responsibility. No reimbursement for counties was included in the
legislation. The number of county participants receiving cash assistance benefits
and subject to random drug testing is negligible and the actual test costs are
approximately$500 a year. The operational costs of handling appeals and legal
challenges have yet to be quantified.
Subtotal. $4,841,400
Human Resources/Employee Benefits
Either Eliminate 299A.465 Employers are required to pay the employer share of disabled peace officers' and
or Totally State- their dependents' health insurance until the peace officer reaches age 65, even if
Fund Continued the officer gains other employment and health insurance coverage. Since this
Health Insurance benefit was created in the late 1990s, there has been a surge in disability
for retirements. In part, because of this, both employer and employee contribution
Disabled Peace rates to the PERA Police and Fire pension plan have increased. When this benefit
Officers was originally enacted, it was predicated on the state paying 100%of its costs. The
state has not kept its part of that bargain for several years. If the state cannot meet
that obligation, the mandated payment by the employer should be eliminated.
Approximately$10,000 per year.
Subtotal: $10,000
35
Mandate Statute Comments
Financial/Administrative Concerns
No-excuse 20313.02 No-excuse absentee voting is projected to increase absentee voting by 50% and,
absentee despite equipment improvements, is expected to increase election administrative
balloting expenses by more than$50,000.
Minutes, 375.12, Allowing web publication in lieu of newspaper publication of County Board
Financial 375.17, minutes,county financial statements,summary budgets,and delinquent property
Statement, 375.169, & tax notices,etc. would save money for county taxpayers, while preserving or even
Budget 279.09, enhancing public access to this information. Approximately$15,800 per year.
Publication, and etc.
Delinquent Tax
Notices,etc.
Eliminate Budget 357.18, Each of the county elected officials has statutory authority to appeal its budgets.
Appeals and Subd. 4; These appeals generally occur after the county levy has been set and require both
Independent 384.151; the elected official and the county to hire outside counsel.The County Board is
Spending 385.373; responsible for establishing the county's overall budget and tax levy. The Board's
Authority by 386.015; accountability to taxpayers demands that it,and it alone, have full control over
County Elected 387.20; county spending decisions.
Officials Other 388.18
than the Board of
Commissioners
Eliminate Library 134.34 Eliminate the requirement that a county must participate in the regional library
Maintenance of system,and levy for library operations an amount equal to the second or third prior
Effort(MOE) year's level of support, unless adjusted net tax capacity decreases. Counties need
the ability to respond to changing priorities and needs. When one area of the
budget is off limits to reductions, other programs or services and their recipients
unfairly bear a disproportionately greater share of any cutbacks when they occur.
OR
Amend the requirement that a county must budget for library operations in an
amount equal to the second or third prior year's level of support to provide that
the requirement does not apply to a county if its county library meets state
standards for public library service to be established by the Minnesota Department
of Education, State Library Services Division. Therefore, the public and elected
officials will know that their funding is purchasing a quality service.
tSub7totah $65,800
GRAND TOTAL: $8,408,900
36
IST.CROIX VALLEY FOUNDATION516 Second Street,Suite 214
J,� Celebrating 20 years Hudson,WI 54016
,-- Off serving the St. Croix Valley 715.386.9490
www.sc%doundation.org
Conversations of the Valley
A public affairs luncheon series sponsored by the
St. Croix Valley Foundation
"The Role of a Community Foundation in Identifying Community Needs"
with guest speaker
Paul Mayer of the New Richmond Area Community Foundation
Paul Mayer has spent over thirty years in all aspects of business including start-up operations,
growing existing companies and turnaround situations, with the last twenty years at senior levels
with profit and loss responsibility. He has developed a special expertise for increasing sales,
developing innovative new products, creating business partnerships, increasing productivity,
reducing costs, off-shore sourcing, strategic planning and mergers and acquisitions. He formed
PCM Global Solutions in 2004 to provide these services to small businesses and moved back to
New Richmond, his home town, in 2006.
Today he serves as the President of the New Richmond Area Economic Development
Corporation and as the Chief Financial Officer for Engineered Propulsion Systems; the new diesel
aircraft engine company here in New Richmond. He also coaches CEOs at a number of
companies throughout northwestern Wisconsin. Paul serves as a Director and Past Chair for the
New Richmond Area Community Foundation, the Treasurer for New Richmond Area Centre, and
the President of the Board for the New Richmond Heritage Center.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
(7VEWLOCATION!) The Lowell Inn Event Center, 102 N. Second St., Stillwater
The cost of the lunch and program is$17 and must be paid in advance to guarantee your reservation.(Any
payments received on the day of the event will be charged$20 a ticket,if seats available.)
To make a reservation due in SCVF offices ?y noon prior to the dao luncheon :
• mail your check to: SCVF,516 Second St.#214,Hudson,WI 54016,or
• make your reservation by credit card online at: FIRST STATE
www.scvfoundation or--/conversations of the valley,using the PayPal BANK AND TRUST
system. There is a$1.00 processing fee per person using PayPal.
Supported with agenerous
contribution from First State
Please note: doors open at 11:15 a.m. Bank and Trust
Eric Johnson
From: Mary Mccomber <marymccomber@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2016 2.47 PM
To: Eric Johnson
Subject: Fwd: Bulletin on Water Quality
For weekly notes.
---Original Message----
From: MAOSC <jsletten@slettengapp.com>
To: marymccomber<marymccomber@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2016 9:22 am
Subject: Bulletin on Water Quality
Minnesota Association of e
DecemberBulletin on Water Quality
Minnesota "We have a shared responsibility to protect Minnesota's
Association precious lakes, rivers, and streams for future generations.
of Small Cities That starts with fostering an ethic of water conservation in
r L our communities," said Governor Dayton. "Throughout the
next year, we must raise awareness of the challenges
H cities in facing Minnesota's waters and highlight ways that
dedicated • providing- a ; .
Minnesotans can take action."
that communicate ,
advocate
- f uaiity of
keep our December 22,
(� dinving. 2016
It is through I
SAVE THE DATE: Mark Dayton and Lt. Governor Tina
your membership that Smith to hold Town Hall Water Summit on January 27
MAOSC ensures a strong
w. at the Minnesota state Join Governor Mark Dayton and Lt. Governor Tina Smith for
Legislatureand with ou ` a Town Hall Water Summit at University of Minnesota,
state and federal policy Morris �
held Friday,Jan 27 2017 at the
makers. III �' � University of
Minnesota, Morris. Registration opens January 6 and the full
program is to be announced on that date.
Despite the state's abundance of lakes,rivers, groundwater and
- - streams,more than 40 percent of Minnesota's waters are
Ydr'.
currently listed as impaired or polluted. Governor Dayton and
Lt. Governor Tina Smith have declared a Year of Water
«, Action to focus on improving access to clean water across
Minnesota. Governor Dayton and Lt. Governor Smith
>,r
BoardMAOSC
encourage all Minnesotans to take a role in protecting our
Directors state's most precious resource for future generations. Learn
Tina Rennemo more about the Year of Water Action here. .
; .
rt j
ri
` Office of Governor Mark Dayton&Lt. Governor Tina Smith
Jeff Kletscher 116 Veterans Service Building
Tim Burk I hardt 20 West 12th Street, Saint Paul, MN 55155 j
jJohn Douville
HammesMichael Shannon �I
James Joy
Mortenson
Wendy d ■
Jon Smith
Jeff ■
Lowell Veurn
SII I
II A
nd Welb7
Mare infor'
Board Members and our
Board
InformationI
I '
Our
! Sponsors
Jill Sletten
Executive Director/Lobbyist
MAOSC
-Bolton & _ nc- www.maosc.org
� E
KU
Sollutions Sletten Government Affairs&Public Policy LLC
jsletten@slettengapp.com
651.26o.2484 cell
www.slettengapp.com
2