Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutweekly notes - August 25th 2017 CITY OF OAK PARKS KLY OTES for: August 25,2017 TO: City Council Memb & FROM: Eric Johnson, City dministra Zoning and Development Items: 1. The Building Official has sent out s ral rcement items-copies are enclosed—pool maintenance,roof maintenance. 2. Scott Richards has communicated to developers regarding the annexation area and to Stillwater Crossing;Both groups must provide required information so Staff can continue any analysis. 3. The State has provided an initial volley of paperwork that attempts to convey portions of the North Frontage Road back to the City. — however that data supplied is not consistent with the terms and conditions of the City-MNDOT Agreement 04959. Staff has let them know in a letter dated 8121/17 of the supplemental requirements on how this can be accomplished;although we know this is basically a first step in the full transfer and which just needed some paperwork is to be chased between both parties. 4. Staff has let the Township and the watershed know about the conceptual annexation area being a matter of discussion. See the enclosed email to Kathy Schmoeckel,TOWN CLERK. 5. A bit—the Burger King was sold-the City has been approached by Norman Quack Restaurant to begin to schedule a preliminary meeting for a redevelopment of this site.The Eagle's Club has been sold to a Twin Cities development firm;they too have been in touch with the City and we look forward to a preliminary conversation with them as well. Other items The Council did request that a letter was sent to MNDOT and Washington County—outlining the City's support of their use of possible remaining HPP funds for a study at the SFR&Osgood Ave.Copy enclosed dated 8123117.As an aside to this,the County did perform a traffic study in March 2017 for this intersection and essentially found it to be a level of service°B"; they note few needed changes in their study,but perhaps not to allow a LEFT tum—northwardly from eastbound 60th Street.—This chart can be seen as attached to the letter to Washington County as it relates to the two west tum lanes—next communication. The Council did request that a letter was sent to the County and State to possibly engage in actions to install a second westbound turn lane onto STH 36 from northbound Osgood Ave.-that DRAFT letter is enclosed. MNDOT Project Update—August 10th,2017 Washington County is seeking support for a TED Grant Application for the major intersection changes at Manning and STH 36 and have inquired if the City would offer a letter of support.At this time,the application is generally incomplete and there is not a specific plan to particularly comment upon. However, what we do know that the large concept is to have an overpass with—hopefully- reasonable access pints to the north and south.I did draft a short tetter that avoided details or City commitments—see enclosed- if the Council would like to consider this on Sept 12th—I know the County would like to have the City's support. Mayor McComber provided: 1. MAOSC Federal Bulletin for July 2017 Please call me at any time if you have questions... 651-253-7837 1 of 37 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N. Phone:651.439.4439 P.O. Box 2007 Fax:651.439.0574 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 August 23, 2017 Mr. Jon Nelson Al Maintenance PO Box 10904 White Bear Lake, MN 55110 Re: Roof Rust and Site maintenance— 15241 Stagecoach Trail N., Oak Park Heights Dear Mr. Nelson As you are aware, your building located at 15241 Stagecoach Trail N. has a metal roof. At this time, this roof is presently in violation of City Nuisance Ordinance 1109 as it has fallen into disrepair and is in need of maintenance. In essence, it must be replaced or updated and cleaned-up so that the rust upon it and other detrimental impacts are removed so that it presents reasonably positively to the surrounding neighborhood. Please note that Xcel Energy recently performed a similar improvement to their building to the south, removing rust from the metal building and recoating it. Please submit a plan,to my attention, as to how you might address this concern and a timeline for its implementation no later than Wednesday, September 6 2017. You may email this. City Staff would be happy to meet with you at the site to discuss any issues and address any questions you may have. Thank you for your prompt attention. Sincerely, _ .,. M —� PLANNING &CODE ENFORCEMENT ° a; k ! Juli ultman, l in �. Buig Official c: Eric Johnson, City Administrator 2 of 37 Email:jhultman@cityofoakparkheights.com k`4e City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N. Phone:651.439.4439 P.O.Box 2007 Fax:651.439.0574 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 August 23, 2017 Sandra Lukas 5632 Osgood Ave. N. Oak Parts Heights, MN 55082 RE: Swimming Pool Maintenance Dear Ms. Lukas: The City has received an inquiry regarding the condition of your swimming pool potentially impacting the neighborhood with negative odors and flies, mosquitos, etc. Upon our site investigation, it appears that the pool while mostly drained does contains a significant amount of algae. The City requests that you drain the pool completely and/or treat the water remaining in the pool so that it does not support aquatic or plant life nor provide a habitat for bugs. This treatment should remove the algae and with it the smell and insects. Please attend to this as soon as possible, but no later than Monday, September it 2017. 1 would be happy to meet with you on site to discuss this issue if you like. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, PLANNING & CODE ENFORCMENT IJu le ultman, Building Official C: Eric Johnson, City Administrator . w �i Email:jhultman@cityofoakparkheights.com 3601 Thurston Avenue N,Suite 100 Anoka, MN 55303 Phone:763.231.5840 Facsim i te:763.427.0520 TPC@ManningCo.com August 23, 2017 Applicants: Phil Hoey Hy Vee Inc. 5820 Westown Parkway West Des Moines, Iowa 50266 Owners: Bernard and Loella Nass 5651 Manning Ave. Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Thomas Bidon 5757 Manning Ave Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 RE: Annexation Application 1 Submission — Dated August 14, 2017 FILE NO: 236.02 - 17.06 The City does appreciate that the submission you provided, however at this time the City has the following comments: 1. The application is rejected as it is not signed 1 submitted by the required property owners as outlined in MN STAT 414.033 Sub 2 (3). Please have all property owners provide a fully executed Petition for Annexation and development application with the necessary signatures. The City is refunding your application fees, minus any consulting fees to date. 2. Consistent with the City's Annexation Policy, the City prefers to avoid the creation of township islands or irregular jurisdictional borders that will create practical difficulties for the provision of future public services including but not limited to roadways, utilities, fire protection, police services, or other required public assets. Therefore, we would strongly encourage you to first secure partnership with Premier Bank for their land. 3. The application lacks a concept layout demonstrating transportation, utilities and/or any other land-use infrastructure and uses. As noted in our letter to Dan Parks of Westwood Engineering, dated August 8th, 2017. (See attached) The City would encourage a master plan be submitted for all areas. 4 of 37 4. We would ask that you please provide a letter from Stillwater Township that is addressed to the City indicating that they are generally amenable to the detachment and the proposed layout that may be submitted in item #3 above. While more communication would be necessary, this would be helpful as the outset of any proposal. When you are able to provide these criteria, the City can commence a more thorough review of the proposal, but please note the City will require that the Applicant's provide the necessary cash security as required to complete necessary studies, including but not limited to those listed below, all of which would need to be completed prior to any final annexation action being considered. 1. A master plan study will be necessary to plan land use, zoning, utility extensions, roadway connections. 2. An impartial traffic study should be required to determine the impact of the potential extension of 58th Street, it's connecting facilities and/or any reasonably anticipated roadways being proposed. 3. A fiscal impact and assessment of development costs associated with roadways, trails, ROW acquisition, fire protection, water, storm sewer, sanitary sewer and any other upgrades to serve a potential annexation area and neighboring lands; and that all costs and infrastructure deemed necessary by the City to serve the planned area shall be the sole financial responsibility of the applicant. The City will not finance and assess any roadway, utility or other improvements in the area. 4. Contact and coordinate with Brown's Creek Watershed District on stormwater improvements that will be required in the area. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 952.221.0547 Sincerely, s6ott P, A0,(A Scott D. Richards— City Planning Consultant to the City of Oak Park Heights The Planning Company LLC c: Eric Johnson Dan Parks 2 5 of 37 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N a Box 2007.Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 August 8th,2017 Daniel Parks, PE Westwood Professional Services 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344-7310 VIA EMAIL ONLY:Dan.Parks@westwoodps.com RE:Annexation Area This letter is in follow-up to our meeting last weeK ana might help guide some future conversations as well.While the concept of a commercial 1 retail establishment in the annexation area can be positive; there remain numerous challenges.We would offer the following information as you begin to plan for this endeavor; 1. Consistent with past developments in the City, so costs are not shifted to other taxpayers -the Developer would be responsible for all public costs associated to serve or are impacted by their development.In essence, all roadways, (including any Manning access and/or any frontage roads if viable at all), trails, ROW acquisitions,water, sewer,sanitary and related utilities would be at the sole expense of the Developer. For these such public elements;the City would perform the design, bidding and construction and would bill ALL such costs(including all related soft costs)to the Developer.The Developer would be required to post a CASH ESCROW or Letter of Credit equal to 125%of the cost estimate as supplied by the City Engineer before any designs are undertaken.A final Developers Agreement would be necessary that would incorporate these and related items. 2. Developers are also responsible for utility connection tees wnicn are calculated depending on type of land use.The 2017 rates for such fees on commercial lands is$18,071 /per gross acre and would need to be paid up-front. 3. Developers are also required to pay Park dedication charges based on the gross land area that are as outlined in City Ordinance 402.08.E(Excerpt here)and would need to be paid up-front. 1E_ Cammvciat4ndwbial De&cn as Developer of com--"Yi uk-r al lead,iaclnding aommetcifiU;••6 :•, pwftons of Planned Devel%==ts, shall be requited to ae&cate the fal]owin& IL Attlw ti=&e sift planis appsaved ammd haddmgpemmas am issued developers shall dedicate to the Chy far pad,treat,playgraond and public open spaceputposes,ao<anm 0flandMPto—U0)Perornt of&e Boss land area wiffin the devdapmenh,as dete®ed by the City- 2_ In those gases whee the City does not tequire pn&at open Mwe within such developments,the City shall requre psymmi of a cash "c4tim equal to Len(10)pewent of the grass hand area within the tevelopmemmR. 4. The City is unsure if your group controls all the necessary lands for this concept,all landowners—as well the applicant(if different from the land owner)would be required to sign any development application;making all parties jointly and severally responsible for any and all City fees,costs,billable hours,etc.So it is vital that all parties are well aware of these responsibilities. 6 of 37 5. We are aware that Washington County is undertaking a study of Manning Ave and STH 36 with various overpass and ramp designs.To date we understand that this work might not move forward until 2021 and we are unsure of when a final design might be adopted—likely not until at least 2020. How this might impact available lands or access will be important to know and or if the County or State might be also acquiring land. 6. The entire question about annexation into the City and the question of certain lands being contiguous needs to be clarified. The MN Office of Administrative Hearings—Munidpal Boundary Adiustments outlines very speck protocols,timelines and would require meaningful legal research and paperwork at the Developer's expense. It may require public hearings,a joint Agreement between the City and the related Township—even if NOT contested.A link to their website is here: http:1/www.mba.state.mn.us/and contains several sample documents. If it is a contested annexation or one that is not acceptable to the Township; anticipate further costs related to all legal matters and actions. 7. This site will require approval of the Brown's Creek Watershed District; this is a separate and distinct entity from the City. 8. From a timing stand point the City does appreciate your earnestness to move forward promptly with all your approval secured desired to be secured by mid-October.Often times,our City moves quickly through the MN STAT 15.99 process.Unfortunately,as these lands are not in the City- nor has an annexation action officially initiated, and as there has not yet been a formal application submitted- nor has there yet been any utility/roadway studies completed,thus...itwould seem unlikely that approvals could possibly be accomplished by mid-October. It would seem completion of a concept approval could be accomplished — perhaps by December 2017 if all parties moved along—but this too is speculation and is an aggressive timeline. Finally, the developers of the lands your client (or perhaps their counterparts) may be interested in purchasing I developing might give some consideration to preparing a MASTER PLAN for all lands lying between Manning Ave and the Oak Park Heights western City limits—and from STH 36 south to 56th Street. The City usually appreciates an understanding of how the balance of the land might be developed and/or impacted as the community does not desire to create remnant or"orphaned" pieces of land that are unsuitable for other reasonable uses. It is through a master plan that the community could envision the total impacts of the development of this area and what to reasonably expect in the next decade—this may help to secure additional community buy-in. At the very least,this matter should be given some careful thought about options for remaining lands. So,we will look forward to further dialogue on this matter. Kind Regards, Eric Johnson City Administrator Cc, Scott Richards,City Planner Mark Ueding, City Attorney Lee Mann, City Engineer 7 of 37 3601 Thurston Avenue N, Suite 100 Anoka, MN 55303 Phone: 763.231.5840 Facsimile: 763.427.0520 TPCTPQ@PlanningCo.00m August 23, 2017 Eric Bjelland Midwest Retail Ventures 1660 South Highway 100 Suite 210 St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 RE; Oak Park Heights - Stillwater Crossings - Design Standards Review, 5950 Osgood Avenue North FILE NO: 236.02 - 17.05 Dear Mr. Bjelland: The City is in receipt of your application materials submitted on August 15, 2017 for improvements to Stillwater Crossings at 5950 Osgood Avenue North, Oak Park Heights. With this letter, we are notifying you that the application is not complete. The City will deem it complete with receipt of the following items by August 30, 2017: 1. Please provide mailing labels from Washington County for properties within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property. 2. Provide an updated rendering with the Carbone's signage as you referred to in an August 14, 2017 memo to Julie Hultman. 3. Provide plans for the trash enclosure location and screening. 4. Provide plans for the screened smoking area. 5. Provide specifications for any freestanding or wall light fixtures that will be replaced. 6. The elevation diagrams should be revised to reflect the color sample that was dropped off at City Hall. 7. Does the current request include the plans for driveway/parking lot layout revisions to add a drive through? 8 of 37 We would invite you and your representatives to a staff meeting on August 30, 2017 at 12:00 at City Hall to discuss these issues and address any questions you may have. If all of the application materials are submitted as requested, the Planning Commission would consider the application at a meeting scheduled for September 14, 2017 at 7:00 in the City Hall Council chambers. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 15.99, Sub. 3(f), the City of Oak Park Heights is herewith extending the period of time for agency/city review of the application for an additional 60-day period (for a total of 120 days from the date of a complete application) inasmuch as the City has determined that additional research and study by the City staff relative to the complexity of the project as proposed will be required. Please contact me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Seoet P A& Scott D. Richards, City Planning Consultant to the City of Oak Park Heights The Planning Company LLC c: Eric Johnson Julie Hultman 2 9 of 37 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007.Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 8-21-17 Mr. Duane M. Greene Office of Land Management MNDOT 395 John Ireland Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 RE:Notice of Release -Effective Sept 1', 2017—Portion of STH 36 Frontage Road Mr. Greene: The City is in receipt of the referenced communication; at this time,the City rejects this action on the part of the State as it does not demonstrate compliance with required agreements — and for which must ultimately be a two-way action. It is necessary that the turnback is processed in the matter as outlined in the three-party agreement—MNDOT Contract 04959. For your reference, I have attached it hereto. Understandably, your communication is a reasonable kick-off to this discussion; That stated, we would be happy to sit down with you at a very early date so we can discuss the necessary documents and process to complete this transfer. Please review the required documentation and elements that are necessary to perfect this. I would refer you to sections 3.1, 3.3, 5.0, 5.1 & 8.14 to begin with; but other sections may require additional review on your part and discussion. In the interim, the snowplowing maintenance elements—with or without the transfer remains in place for to gh approximately Oct 2nd,2019. Pleas co so we can schedule a meeting and resolve the necessary issues and secure the n ss do entation. ri on City dmin.strator Mark Vierling, City Attorney Wayne Sandberg, Washington County 10 of 37 11111 DEPARTMENT OF 395 John Ireland Boulevard TRANSPORTATION Saint Paul, MN 55155 August 4, 2017 651-366-3462 Jennifer Pinski City Clerk City of Oak Park Heights PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 In reply refer to: Control Section No, 8214 County of Washington Release No. 1624 Dear Mrs. Pinski: Attached is a Notice of Release of a portion of Trunk Highway No. 36. This will be effective September 1. 2017, and the description reads as follows: Beginning at a point on the north side of the state highway right of way of Trunk.Highway No. 36, said point is located approximately 230 feet north and approximately 690 feet east of the south corner of Section 33, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, thence west along the centerline of the North Frontage Road to the intersection of the north-south quarter line thereof at the west corporate limits of the City of Oak Park Heights and there terminating. The subject portion of road reverts to the jurisdiction of the City of Oak Park Heights in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 161.16 and 161.24 (and Acts amendatory thereto). If you require additional information, call Mr. Blake Rivard, Office of Land Management, at the above number, or write this office. Sincerel GI�LG ' Duane M. Green Jr.,Acting erector Office of Land Management Encl: Release No. 1624 An Equal Opportunity Employer 11 of 37 DEPARTMENT OF 395 John Ireland Boulevard TRANSPORTATION Saint Paul, MN 55165 Maintenance Area- Metro Release No. 162 Control Sectign N . 8214RECEIVED NOTICE OF RELEASE OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 1 ,'`�;% AUG 9 To: Jennifer Pinski City Clerk QtY of Oak Park Haphts City of Oak Park Heights PM PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 You are hereby notified that a portion of Trunk Highway No. 36 has been definitely designated and located by Order No. 96061 and that the portion of trunk highway not included within the right of way of said definite location are hereby released to the City of Oak Park Heights as follows: Beginning at a point on the north side of the state highway right of way of Trunk Highway No. 36, said point is located approximately,230 feet north and approximately 690 feet east of the south corner of Section 33, Township 30 North, Range 20 West; thence west along the centerline of the North Frontage Road to the intersection of the north-south quarter line thereof at the west corporate limits of the City of Oak Park Heights and there terminating. This release to be effective as of September 1. 2017. Dated. 9-7-1? Chanes A. Zelle - Commissioner Minnesota Department of Transportation (This notice is being sent to the County Auditor and to all affected governing bodies within the county in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 161.16 and 161.24 and acts amendatory thereto). Notice is provided to indicate a change in jurisdictional responsibility. It is intended for informational purposes only and should not be presented for recording. If you have any questions regarding this matter,feel free to contact the Office of Land Management, telephone 651-366-3462. An Equal Opportunity Employer 12 of 37 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY OAK PARK HEIGHTS Q WASHINGTON COUNTY ORLEANS POP. 4,339 24 PART OF ,v RELEASE No. 1624 STI]LLWATER z CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS EFFECTIVE 9/1/2017 62nc P z 66 �OREN CT. a I L o Q 3G a 60th P s T. 2 � v � z 59th ST. N. z 2 > w z 59th D a a w w Z z w > z a J Q w w < w Q 11J ST. o w a o a o 'a z 24 a 0 o w _R o - o o d o 0 58th ST. N. o CD ST. a QPM PARK 57th z ST. N. o 0 z 56th ST. a -4 z z F a old- w 56th wa ST. C56 h ST. N. OLDFIELD � ST. 13 of 37 M nDOT Contract No:04959 STATE OF MINNESOTA,WASHINGTON COUNTY,CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS CHANGE OF ROADWAY JURISDICTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Control Section Number:8214 Trunk Highway Number:36 Purpose: MnDOT to City: State release of a portion of 60th Street North(Trunk Highway No.36 North Frontage Road),the transfer of MnDOT easement rights to the City of Oak Park Heights for the portion of 60P Street North that lies between the City limits near Omaha Avenue and Oren Avenue(Segment#1) County to City: Acquire ROW and build the new frontage road segment in accordance with the approved plan from Oren Ave.to Osgood Avenue(Segment#3)and fim transfer County property rights along the realigned frontage road to the City. City to County:To secure and make available land rights to the County for those portions of the realigned frontage road owned or maintained by the City in Segment#3. City:To take over ownership and all maintenance of the newly reconstructed and relocated frontage road from City limits near Omaha Avenue to Oren Avenue(Segment#1)and Oren Ave to Osgood(Segment#3)four years from and after substantial completion of the frontage road relocation and reconstruction. This Agreement is among the State of Minnesota,acting through its Commissioner of Transportation ("MnDOT'J,the City of Oak Park Heights,a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota acting through its City Council("City")and Washington County,Minnesota,acting by and through its Board of Commissioners CVounty'l RECITA1S 1. Minnesota Statutes§161.20 authorizes MnDOT to enter into agreements with other governmental authorities to carry out the purposes of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 161. 2. The City and County are each a Road Authority as defined in Minnesota Statutes§160.02(subd.25);, 3. MnDOT has determined that the current portion of 6e Street North(Trunk Highway No.36 North Frontage Road)from the City boundary new Omaha Avenue to Oren Avenue(Segment#1)is no longer needed for highway purposes. 4. The City,County and MnDOT have entered into this Agreement to provide for the orderly release of this frontage road to the jurisdiction of the City and to provide for the cooperative relocation and reconstruction of a new frontage road as depicted in Exhibits A&B attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 5. The release of 60*Street North to the City will occur following the completion of the Project Work as outlined below,Exhibit A shows the three frontage road segments described as follows: 5.1. Segmmew#1—From the City limit near Omaha Avenue to Oren Avenue. MnDOT reconstructed, , this segment of 60*Street North with the St.Croix Crossing Project in 2014. 5.2. Segmeid#2--From Oren Avenue to Osgood Avenue(old alignment). MnDOT will release dds segment of 6e Street and convey MnDOT's easement rights to Washington Coady. 53. Segment#3-From Oren Ave to Osgood Avenue(new alignment). MnDOT and Washington County will reoonstruct 60P Street(which includes a north-south section of Oren Ave.) Page 1 of 11 14 of 37 i WDOT Contract No:04959 consistent with the frontage road realignment depicted in Esbibit B. The realignment and construction of Segment 43 is anticipated to be completed in 2015. Near the and of the construction of Segment#3,the Segment#2 roadway will be removed. 6. The City will be replacing city-owned water utilities along Oren Avenue with a separate city construction project,the City utility project shall be completed by July 20,2015. The City will coordinate the scope,timing and schedule of its work and provide reasonable notice to each should any changes occur. Any and all costs incurred by the County due to delay in completion of the City work,shall be the responsibility of the City. Any and all costs incurred by the City due to delay in completion of the County work,shall be the responsibility of the County. 7. MnDOT will convey its property rights to the County in Segment#2 as shown in Exhibit A north of the proposed right-of-way line. Property rights south of the line will be retained by MnDOT. $. MmDOT has provided the City with its documentation regarding the clean-up and disposal of hazardous materials related to the Westbury Property. AGREEMENT 1. Effective Date;Survival of Terms This Agreement will be effective on the date last signed below by all parties and by such other State of Minnesota officials as required by Minnesota Statutes§16C.05. This Agreement will remain in effect until the Project Work is completed and until MnDOT has served a Notice of Release and the four year WDOT maintenance requirement has expired. All clauses which impose obligations contmumg in their nature and which must survive in order to give effect to their meaning will survive the expiration of this Agreement. 2. Identification of Roadway Segments;Right-of-Way Determination The Roadway Segments covered by this agreement are identified as Segment#1 [60 Street North (Trunk Highway No.36 North Frontage Road)from the City limits near Omaha Avenue to Oren Avenue]and Segment#3 [new frontage road alignment from the Oren Ave/6&St intersection to Osgood Avenue]and located within the City limits of Oak Park Heights.See Exhibit A for a preliminary depiction of right-0f--way to be released to the City in Segments#1 and#3. The parties will determine the final right-of-way limits prior to transfer of title or property rights to the City for Segments#1&#3. Segment#2 is covered under a separate agreement between the County and MuDOT. 3. Notice of Release;Conveyance Documents(By state) 3.1. Nodee of Release. MnDOT will deliver a"Notice of Release"to the City in recordable form, releasing the Roadway Segment#1 from MnDOT's jurisdiction including any and all rights to such lands,easements and access points. Upon the date specified in the notice the City will become the Road Authority with unrestricted jurisdiction over the roadway segment and will assume all responsibility for the operation,maintenance,and reconstruction of the roadway segment and of all structures and facilities that are a part of the roadway segment,except for those maintenance items specified in Article 5 as the State's responsibility.No alterations or additions to title shall be allowed pending final release thereof without the City's approval in writing. 3.2. Corrwyance Documents. Subsequent to issuing the Notice of Release,MnDOT will prepat!e and execute necessary and appropriate documents conveying MnDOT's property interestsrn Roadway Segment#1 to the City. Page 2 of 11 15 of 37 MnDOT Contract No:04959 3.3. Condition Pneeedent m Rdease and Conveyance. After MaDOT defines the limits of the easement interest that it will convey to the City,the City will promptly undertake title work to determine the condition of title. The City will accept the release and conveyance if the City determines,in its reasonable discretion following the examination-of title,that the easement interest conveyed by MnDOT provides a sufficient basis in real estate title standards for the City to lawfully have and operate a city street and to place and maintain city utilities free from adverse interests. This acceptance of the condition of title must occur before the State is allowed to release and convey its easement interest to flee City. A. Maintenance#''ConAWon Pmardent is not met. If this condition has not been fulfilled,and MnDOT has not released and conveyed its easement interest to the City by the end of the "Maintenance Period"as defined in Article 5,Bien the City,at the expiration of the Maintenance Period,will be responsible for all routine maintenance including plowing, mowing,and minor patching,and MuDOT will remain responsible for major maintenance including resurfacing and reconstruction for segment 1 only. 4. Notice of Release; Conveyance Documents(By County) 4.1. Notice of Release. Washington County has acquired certain interests in land within Segment #3 for right-of-way purposes as it relates to the re-alignment of a portion the North Frontage Road. Pursuant to this agreement this portion of Segment#3 in die ownership of Washington County will be transferred to the City within a reasonable time after MnDOT delivers its"Notice of Release" to the City. 42 Conveyance Documents.Subsequent to MnDOT issuing the Notice of Release,the County will prepare and execute necessary and appropriate documents conveying the County's property interests in the portion of roadway Segment#3 to the City. S. Maintenance muDOT will maintain the north iiontage road(Segments#1 and#3)during a"Maintenance Period". The Maintenance Period begins at the execution of this Agreement and runs unW all of the following conditions have occurred: (1) four years have passed from the substantial completion date(anticipated to be October 1,2015), (2) the State has provided a Notice of Release to the City for the roadway segment as described in 3.1, (3) the County has provided a Notice of Release to the City for the County-held properties in Segment#3. (4) the City has issued a Notice of Acceptance to both the State and the County that all conditions of this Agreement have been satisfied and the roadway is in a condition reasonably anticipated for its age. Such Notice of Acceptance may not be unreasonably withheld,conditioned or delayed by the City.A City notice as to any deficiencies shall occur prior to October 1,2018 to allow MnDOT and the County time to address or respond to identified issues. (5) The provisions of paragraph 3 and its subparts 3.1 through 3.3 have been satisfied and the city has accepted the conveyance pursuant to those provisions(except that the maintenance provision in Article 3.3 A will apply until MnDOT is able to convey title in a condition as required by Article 3.3). 5.1. MnDOT maintenance will include routine snow and ice maintenance duties and maintenance of the roadway surface including the curb and gutter. MnDOT will maintain the roadway to its0 . standards and will not routinely mow along the roadway. ' ;- 5.2. On or about October 2,2019,and following the City's acceptance of the condition of#110s1 provided in Article 3.3,the City as the road authority will be responsible for maintenance of this roadway segment. The City will thereafter be responsible for performing and paying for all Page 3 of 11 16 of 37 MnDt3T Contract No:04959 maintenance and reconstruction of this roadway segment,including all structures and facilities that constitute a part of such roadway to the standards it sets for city streets. 5.3. MnDOT or its designee will have maintenance responsibility,including any related operational liabilities to the extent authorized by law,for roadway Segments#1 and#3 for the Maintenance Period as defined above. 5.4. Washington County will not be responsible for any maintenance or any related operational liabilities to the extent authorized by law within Segments#1 and#3 upon completion of construction. 6. Responsibility for Claims MaDOT will remain responsIle,to the extent authorized by Minnesota Statutes§3.736 and other applicable law,for claims related to construction,maintenance,and operation of the Roadway Segments during the period when it is under MnDOT control,even if such claims are filed after the City receives the Notice of Release. Subject to the provisions of Minn.Stat.466.04 the City will be responsible for claims arising out of its own construction,maintenance,or operations of the Roadway Segments after it has received the Notice of Release and fully assumed maintenance responsibility. 7. General Provisions 7.1. Venue. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this Agreement,or its breach,must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County,Minnesota. 7.2. Terminadon. This Agreement may be terminated only by mutual written agreement of the parties. 7.3. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found to be invalid or unenforceable,such provision will not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement, which will remain in force and effect. 7.4. Merger. This Agreement contains all prior negotiations and agreements between MnDOT,the County and the City. No other understanding regarding this Agreement,whether written or oral,may be used to bind either party. 7.5. Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by all of the same parties who executed and approved this Agreement,or their successors in office. 7.6. Gom ntentDa" This Agreement,and any data exchanged by the parties pursuant to this Agreement,will be"government data"and subject to the requireanents of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act,Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. 7.7. State Audits. The books,records,documents,and accounting practices and procedures of the City,County and MnDOT relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by the parties, including any agent or representative of a party and the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, for a minimum of six years. S. Additional Provisions 8.1. Right-of-way release limits an preliminarily as shown in Exhibit B, 8.2. MaDOT and the County have transportation easements for the north frontage road properties and do not own the underlying fee title. MnDOT and the County each represent that their respective property rights are transferable and effective for the purpose of creating a frontage road and city street complete with all customary rights of way and rights to place municiW,anal.:; related utilities therein. Page 4 of 11 :' 17 of 37 MnDOT Contract No:04959 83. Necessary lands have been secured by the County to allow for Segment#3 to be constructed as shown in the Project Plan. No part of this expanse shall be the direct or indirect obligation of the City.Should a conflict arise where the property interest(s)to be transferred to the City are not suitable for City roadway purposes under this Agreement,the County shall promptly correct any and all defects at its sole expense.Multiple segments of temporary easements will be required to be purchased to facilitate the construction of the project as shown in the Project Plan by the County and/or t he. State of MN as well and a new access to Oren Avenue from the Fairy Motors North Lot that lies north of the proposed new frontage road alignment. No part of this expense shall be the direct or indirect obligation of the City of Oak Park Heights. 8A. Necessary lands have been secured by the City to allow for Segment##3 to be constructed as shown in the Project Plan(Westbury Property). No part of this expense shall be the direct or indirect obligation of the County. 8.5. Any required private access or other property owner accommodations provided to or on behalf of the CARQUEST building/site(or for any other lands impacted by this Project)shall be entirely the cost of The State of MN and/or the County.Any liabilities far"takings'or other condemnation actions as a result of the implementation of this Plan shall be fully defended and/or paid by the State of MN and/or the County. SA Recording of the conveyance documents from the County and MOOT and any costs associated with that process will be the City's responsibility;MnDOT and the County shall at their expense review and approve,any such documents as the City Attorney believes are necessary for recording purposes. MaDOT will sign such documents subject to the approval of MnDOT's Director of Land Management and the County will sign such documents subject to the approval of the County's Surveyor.MnDOT and the County shall deliver documents in recordable form to the City as needed for this project.Once requested,signatures of MaDOT or the County may not be unreasonably conditioned,withheld or delayed. M. The roadway segments shown in Exhibit A are served by downstream storm water infrastructure owned and maintained by MnDOT.Segments 1,2&3 shall remain tributary to those existing storm water systems and the City shall have the continued right to discharge existing surface waters thereto. 8.& Once the roadways(Segments 1 and 3)are constructed,the County may not close the left-turn in lane(from northbound Osgood Ave)to the new frontage roadway(westbound)nor restrict nor alter any other access to such roadway without the written consent of the City. Representatives of the City and County have met on several occasions to consider current and future access locations to the segment of Osgood Avenue,from TH 36 to Orleans Street. Exhibit C identifies the other planned future major access locations for this segment of Osgood Avenue,including the type of movements ghat are anticipated to be accommodated at those locations. Exhibit C is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. All other access points to Osgood Ave.shall be subject to restriction as the County deems necessary pursuant to established law. The County discourages new direct private access to Osgood Avenue. Access to private property should he provided by the local road network whenever reasonably possible. Page 5 of 11 18 of 37 i i MnDOT Contract No:04959 8.9. MnDOT has developed the plans and specifications for the Segment#3 construction. The City and County have each reviewed the plans and specifications and with their signatures on the plans cover sheet have approved the construction plan and specifications currently being advertised to prospective contractors.The County will control and manage the construction work of this project.The plan set to be.constructed were last signed and dated by the Project Design Engineer dated:5/14/2015 and are incorporated herein by reference.The County shall provide a final plan set demonstrating any and all changes since such signatures were provided prior to the final execution of this Agreement. 8.10.Upon completion the County will secure and provide to the City final and correct"as built" drawings and record plans from its contractor for the new frontage road(segments d &3)and in the"AutoCAD"format as required by the City Engineer. 8.11.The north frontage road at Osgood Ave is designed to accommodate a future traffic signal. No material alterations to the design of the north frontage road(Segments 1 &3)may be made without the written consent of the City and the County. &12.The City will be replacing the water main in Oren Ave.at its sole expense,but all final land reclamations and roadway reconstruction,beyond water main trench re-filling within Segment #3 constriction area,shall be the responsibility of MnDOT and/or Washington County as addressed with the frontage road realignment project. The City shall ensure proper compaction for bwAcfiU of hmchiug or any other excavations. Settlement of the water-main trench or any other excavations related to city work,and any costs that may arise due to poor compaction,will be the responsibility of the City. 8.13.During the construction of Segment#3 the City may at its discretion and cost inspect the construction work,attend construction meetings and review all change orders. The City's comments will be reviewed by the County. The County shall not materially deviate from the approved plans without the written consent of the City which shall not be unreasonably withheld by the City.The County will have authority over any issues that impact their execution of the construction and administration of the Segment#3 construction. The County will notify the City of any Change Orders that may be proposed. 8.14.MnDOT and the County will convey all their respective property nights in Segments#1&#3 to the City. Both MnDOT and County have easement rights and not the underlying fee. If underlying fee is held by MnDOT or the County,such interests shall also be fully released to the City at no cost.The Cityaroaduired MnDOT and County property interests will be conveyed to the City within approximately two years of final signature of this Agreement. A clause will be included in MnDOrs conveyance that allows existing utilities to remain in the Segment#1 turn back area,including any existing MnDOT-owned utilities. Any easements or other property interests accepted by the City under this Agreement shall be wholly and completely released by the State of Minnesota and the County to the City without restriction.There are no reservations or rights expressed or implied being preserved by the State of MN and/or any other,,;,�,3 party fiom this Agreement or any other prior agreement or contract. &15.MnDOT and the County shall ensure that all real property interests to be conveyed'€ &City' under this Agreement are free of all public or private encumbrances except those bol"ta to the City and except for existing utilities authorized to remain in place pursuant to.4rfieJe:8.14. MnDOT will provide the City with title information in WDOT's possession and bly requested by the City. i Page ti of 11 19 of 37 MnDOT Contract No:04959 Should there be errors or defects in such conveyances to the City by the County,then the County shall be required to correct such deficiencies. If the City identifies any title issues or concerns prior to the oonveyance,the City will give the County prompt notice of such issues or concerns. The County will not be required to correct deficiencies if those deficiencies have been remedied by the City obtaining prescriptive nights pursuant to Minnesota law. The County will indemnify and defend the City but only for the property the County has conveyed to the City from any and all title claims asserted by any persons or entities claiming adverse rights that impair or impede the City's right to locate,maintain or replace a street right of way for public transportation and municipal utility placement and utilization 8.16.Once the roadway has been placed under the jurisdiction of the City,the City will be the exclusive permitting and regulatory authority for the roadway(segments 1&3)conveyed to the City and will retain full control over any/all utility locations,use,closures,easements,weight restrictions and future modifications. 8.17.The City and the County will not maintain any facilities that serve a private function,regardless of location;this includes the stairway to"Fury's upper lot"and any storm sewers that serve only a private function,without a separate agreement approved by the City and/or the County.This does not include the retaining wall that is part of the Segment#3 roadway and which will be the City's responsibility.While under State or County jurisdiction or control,unless expressly and separately approved by the City in writing,MnDOT and the County must ensure that all private +.,16P etp chap.not be located on lands to be conveyed to the City. 8.18.Washington County may close or restrict any access points to Osgood Avenue,lying south of STH 36,as it deems necessary and pursuant to established law. Prior to any such closures,the City and area property owners shall be provided with reasonable and timely public review of county plans,including an opportunity to comment on the proposal(s)and provide input. 8.19.There shall not be any street lighting(illumination)installed as part of this Project;if any street lighting is requested or required by any entity,the requesting party shall pay for the installation and pay for all required maintenance and electricity costs to operate.There shall not be any plantings,trees or any other organic or inorganic ornamental elements of this Project.All facilities shall be of highly durable,low-maintenance construction.If any such plantings or ornamental items are requested or required by any entity,the requesting party shall pay for the installation and pay for all future required maintenance and care at their own expense. $.20.Should the City execute the water main work as generally outlined in this Agreement and the State and/or the County not promptly and in good faith undertake the subsequent Oren Ave and Segment#3 contract by August 5th,2015,MnDOT shall,within 60 calendar days of receiving written notice from the City,restore the Oren Ave surface and drainage elements to a condition at least equivalent to its condition prior to the installation of the water main. p THE BALANCE OF THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. Page 7 of 11 20 of 37 v MOOT Contract No:04959 CITY OF OAK PARK]HEIGHTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The unders igaed certify that they have lawfully executed this contract on behalf of the Recommended for Approval: Governmental Unit as requited by applicable charter provisions,resolutions or ordinances. 13y: r (District Engineer) By: C Date: D A5 Title: Approved: a Date: By: (State Designngineer) Br- Date: —�n.{p.,is Title: Date: WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION The undersigned certify that they have lawfully executed this contract on behalf of the Governmental Unit as required by applicable charter provisions,resolutions or ordinance . By: (With delegated authority) By: Date: ��.•( p7� { Title: gr& Date: , -• p By: Assistmi WaAffigton County Attorney Title: { Date. --- Page S of 11 21 of 37 MnDOT Contract Na:04959 INCLUDE COPY OF RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING ITS EXECUTION. ' RESOLUTION i S spg—y2 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE THRE F PARTY AGS BgT=STATE OF M'lPTNEWFA.WAsmGTON COUNTY AND THE CM OF OAK PARIC HEGIM FOR A CHANGE OF ROADWAY 3URMCTION AND MAMMANCE AGREZMZNT FOR 66TU STRUT NORTH ALSO KNOWN AS THE NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD. Whereas,the City of Oak Park Hem,the Stets of Minnesota and Washingtmr CW-KO,ON Parties) have eg=d that Bis oamat roadway knoam as 6&Street 1 lhe Nor*Fraula%p Road is outdated and is WW served hung rrtloww to a now kKellm;04 i Whereas,the Parbas have agreed an land actlnwkxn cansi< tom oust responsibilities and long-tem mampte mw atemmrts for iris R eloealian Pmjool;814 Whereas.the parries believe that dais Projeet should be exeeoted protmptly;and, Whereas,Mlnneaota statutes§161.20 authmikes the Minamote Depart.Of Tmnsporiaden 00100 1)to elan into aweemernis with ad=Bavermreagd"orm"to eetry out the purposes of IN mwsota 91a mm Chapter 161;and. Whereas,The City and Cmmty are each a Road Authm*as darmod is)Snnesofa Statute" §160.02 (subd.25N and, Whereas,WDOT has de*minad that Bre ctiurent Paarion of 6&Sham North(Troek ffig may No.36 l+iprtlr Fromp Rod)ftm Bre City boundary oast Omaha Avenue to Oran Avenue(Sawed 6l)is no longer needed for hishway Purposes;and, Whereas,Tim City,Cmmty and MnDOT have enured lulu ibis Agmament to provide for the orderly role=of this frauatage road to the,jurisdiction of ire City sad to provide for the ao ve rekradon and reconoumfion of a new f ufftage rand. NOW,THERW ORE HE IT RESOLVED by the City Comicil fen ire City of Oak Padc Helglns drat it does hereby approve the enclosed 0mup is Rodway 7urisdichon ad lNaiateoarca Agee and for the bfY`Streatas attached. •yr,��its,s•,:., PIE IT FMTHER RESOLVRD du t the City Atttunay shall be amlreriaad to Malta amendments to Dbe Agreement as his office dams necassary to fieiliw the Projem outcome.. F Adopted by the a4'C*mu of the Cita'of Oak Park BeIZ145,Mina,this 26&40.O bY, 201& CITY OF OAK PARK RUGHM MINNES '1'A �L ourq .mew A A wroa,CfV Admitibtm%r Page 9 Of 11 22 of 37 U=y d r.. I o- s: - - Vii! T.tti+rgw�.m c I r x 7 ® 3 }+ IER�i i i i M nDOT Contract No:04953 Exhibit C l�CCESS LEiiGatiQ11S. ra ed � a� y �, .a��' �,i.$—c I F14µ`es$ r I' i FJki�sr.4 I 7 c 1.1-+'.444•_'S W X y 4� i rJ'..li!1x.761 � .. •i r t l= _ 4u yea ra Hwy 3 -N6111):Fir6jifage Road.R-*6'ed Access MQlidgerne-irt. � rp. Page 11 of 11 24 of 37 Eric Johnson To: kathy.schmoeckel@stillwatertownship.com Cc: Sherri A. Buss; Scott Richards(Scott@planningco.com) Subject: Stillwater Township- Detachment Issue FYI B-23-17 TO: Kathy Schmoeckel, Town Clerk-Town Board and Planning Commission Dear Kathy, ( I left you a message—but here is the upshot...) I just wanted to give you a heads-up; but I am sure you might have been approached by the property owner(s). We have received information from some of those land-owners with land in the Township, (South of STH 36)to be annexed into the City. (generally the Nass and Bidon Properties (parcels A, B&C—see map below)—although there are some interceding other ownership issues) At this time Staff has not accepted their application as it is incomplete as it needs vastly more data begin to analyze. Overall,the City would seek to have this be an orderly annexation per se -if it gets that far. Please note that for the past 10+years or so, the City's policy has been that the City would generally only consider this if it was without major issue with the Town or other detaching entity. To that end,we have asked that the parties seek a letter from the Township to be written to the City indicating that your community has no major issues with their concepts. So,this is essentially what we know today, but I am quite sure there will be more to come. Let me know if I can answer any questions or offer more data. Kind Regards Eric Eric Johnson, City Administrator 651-439-4439 Cc: Sherrie Buss,Town Planner Scott Richards,City Planner 25 of 37 v ir#1 ti +ri V Y p #'�¢' Pare A -?tib° r 0602920220001 4 f ; 060292023000 i Parol C 0802M220002 26 of 37 City of Oak Park Heights 14I68 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007.Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439439•Fax(651)439-0574 8-23-17 TO: Adam Josephson VIA EMAIL ONLYadam.josephson@state.mn.us MNQOT Water's Edge Building 1500West County Road B2 Roseville,MN 55113 Wayne Sandberg VIA EMAIL ONLY Wayne.Sandberg@co.washington.mn.us Washington County Public Works 11660 Myeron Road Stillwater, MN 55082 RE:South Frontage Road Studies—HPP Funds. Gentlemen: As the City is aware,there may be remaining and available funds from the State of Minnesota—HPP MN 126—sources that could be applied to certain STH 36 and State Frontage Road studies. If that remains the case, the City would certainly encourage and support both the State and/or the County to secure and allocate the use of these funds to perform further traffic I access studies for the SW leg of the south frontage road as owned by the State as it intersects with Osgood Ave which is a County Highway. The City remains in a position where it cannot assume this South frontage road from the State for the foreseeable future and as the City has noted in the past to your respective offices. However, the City would certainly support improvements the State or County might desire to make to improve the functionality of these roadways within our joint communities, including the use of the above HPP funds to begin to further investigate realistic options. Please let me know if the City can advocate further for the use of these HPP funds for your possible study. Kind regards, Eric Johnson City Administrator Cc: Lee Mann, STANTEC—via email only Allan Brandt,Washington County—via email only. 27 of 37 LIM W-- City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N•Box 2007.Oak Paris Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 August 25, 2017 Washington County Commissioners CIO: Molly O'Rourke, County Administrator Washington County PO BOX 6 Stillwater,MN 55082 RE: Osgood and STH 36—Turn Lane With the opening of the new St. Croix River Crossing as well as the anticipated updates to Osgood Ave in 2018;the City would request that the County again review the possibility of the installation of a second Left Turn Lane onto West Bound STH 36 from North Bound Osgood Ave (CSAR 24) —see map on next page. It is considered that this may help ease some traffic congestion. While there are times of the day this area can function adequately under current layout; however, there are other times when having these two westbound turn lanes may be of significant help and would reduce stacking that impacts the Holiday Gas Station and/or bila'street. The City does note that the County's 2017 Traffic Report& Study from the Osgood Corridor study (page 9 enclosed) does at least offer some further rationale to this possibility in Build Scenario 1 & 3; although the City does understand there are other impacts that would need to be understood further. The City does encourage and support the County's ability to investigate and/or implement these changes, with possible concurrence from the State if necessary. Please let the City know if you have any questions. Kind Regards Mary McComber, Mayor Cc: City Council Members Lee Mann, City Engineer Adam Josephson, MNDOT Eric Johnson, City Administrator 28 of 37 csm a4wtabbom Cow"Camdor Sm*fTfWcAlWj f MWmftap AmawwW Ml :��% � lle�itr�lAamn�r Takla 8:Damcriptian of 2040 BuNd Scse►ariaa for CSM 21 . l ^-x of - • Add 58 MUM bM • No adon • &Oni tottrlda6otA(NdI Orleans Svw An*Md in Sysrdao- . � .' m.,. �9ewFl3fYAgridnce) • Rea%p ittetsecim �900d 9 ]t Reeliga ltt an srd SVaet (D59-dg--by ttecameS NS L-TA va (6P°acd os➢�d reraains same,west leg SB L-TR sr�ro +retris� mots cm • Add tatle itla Sighafae ir(erseefsn + sill Straw (model wits N9 outside (modek wm NB ow* Sane �sl pasi Erle dropping al� sigh Sheet as a g t 4 m �1 m • ;tore .:.'��� 9i + Ut xreA • Aal''a 1c't tu'�i-lnBS TH 38 ",Jt y 5 „a ,: lath r^te"„n:]h ar4 A,line th.Rl S,:n efigh}tu'r:nd cmad to No Dcbm "D DOM r_�r.:.-71:St7 rt09lj E-lr: 80 stew irt-rseftn(al Ids besarne:ig s and w � frerisatzr6a55a€6 Q•.:••; a Noaclian �� � (longe!t�Ea)t�11E lal�r ( i� L14w�91 medindwwrrgd@Ile n1Et�o dlosmrg at3ra s*,E ftes ., .separate RT ',RTI u. ;. kemwedsideaf lstcanalhdgkof taM*Mdmcbdl w lum iian w sheet iBOmn9e 9b 6seiS4raltt GWWAkiM9OdMAD • Noatdiam a�n iltelser�Iat apptaatit Istel an 5' shd Qseo ead leg of 62•SMeetinrera of Add N®L mW SBL hbacion + Na acft upper Si& CommtOe5fl mba '+ sbv*t sfe¢edSmngi+o¢d. 29 of 37 Eric Johnson From: Mary Mccomber <marymccomber@aol.com> Sent Wednesday,August 23, 20171:19 PM To: Eric Johnson Subject Fwd:So,what's next? Eric, Just in case you already deleted this..........the link for the program is found below St. Croix Crossing website. Mary -----Original Message---- From: St Croix Crossing Project Team <stcroixcrossin ,dot ublic. ovdelive .com> To: marymccomber<marymccombertMaol.com> Sent: Thu,Aug 10, 201711:15 am Subject: So, whars next? St Croix So, what's next? low CROSSING Hello again, The St. Croix Crossing has now been open to traffic for one week. Please note that MnDOT has made some preliminary adjustments to the signal timing on Highway 36 and Highway 95 from Highway 36 through downtown Stillwater. MnDOT will continue to monitor all the signals and make adjustments as necessary until traffic stabilizes over the next few weeks. In Wisconsin, there is still work to be done on the road leading to the new bridge before it can be opened to the full four-lane facility. There will be lane closures periodically through mid-November to complete the entire roadway project in Wisconsin. To learn more about what's next on the St. Croix Crossing project, ° ) The St. Croix Crossing website will remain available for public use. In the future, all questions regarding the St. Croix Crossing should be directed to the St. Croix Crossing website, the Lift Bridge website, the"Wisconsin Loop rail website or Kent Barnard with MnDOT Communications and Engagement. Emails from the St. Croix Crossing project will cease after today, Aug. 10 and the distribution list will be transferred to the Lift Bridge conversion project,which will send occasional email updates regarding the transformation of the Stillwater Lift Bridge to a 30 of 37 pedestrian/bike facility. You may choose to opt out If you would not like to receive updates on the Lift Bridge conversion project. Thank you again for your interest, support, and participation over four years of construction. Its been a privilege keeping you updated on the bridge. Farewell, and all the best to you! .� d, m a � From the bridge foundations to today. From left to right: July 2014 and July 2017, looking south. .. m , a Yom " The first cars cross the 5t. Groix Grossing on the evening of Aug. 2. Photo from David Gonzalez, looking east. 2 31 of 37 Traffic crosses thfe St. Croix Crossing on the evening of Aug. 2. Photo from David Gonzalez, to{_FkuILI avast. OWN FEUMM/40 m Traffic crosses the St. Croix Crossing on Aug. 3 atter opening to traffic on Aug. 2. Photo from Aug. 3, looldng west.. Stay connected • Visit the project website Visit the Lift Bridge website Visit the Wisconsin Loop Trail website 3 32 of 37 Eric Johnson From: Eric Johnson Sent: Thursday,August 24, 2017 11:26 AM To: 'Ann Pung-Terwedo' Subject: RE:2017 TED 36 Manning Application.docx 8/24/17 Ann, The paragraph found on Page 2 seems reasonable and I would be happy to provide a general letter of support. Could you provide what the City of Stillwater sent or another and I can mimic that. The application appears to be Due on 9/15—realizing you would not want to wait that long...but When might the data in the remaining tables be available to review? Thanks eric From:Ann Pung-Terwedo [mailto:Ann.Pung-Terwedo@co.washington.mn.us] Sent:Thursday,August 24,201711:18 AM To: Eric Johnson<eajohnson@cityofoakparkheights.com> Subject:2017 TED 36 Manning Application.docx Eric, Here is the draft we have been working on. Regards, Ann Pung-Terwedo J Senior Planner Planning Division Phone:651-430-4362 J Fax:651-430-4350 Ann.pune-terwedo@co.washineton.mn.us Washington County Public Works Department 11660 Myeron Rd North J Stillwater, MN 55082 "Plan,build and maintain a better Washington County" 1 33 of 37 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007.Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 8124117 Wayne Sandberg Washington County Engineer 11660 Myeron Road North Stillwater Mn 55082 RE: Support for Transportation Economic Development program funding for the Trunk Highway(TH)36/County State Aid Highway(CSAH) 36/Manning Avenue Interchange Project Dear Mr. Sandberg: The City of Oak Park Heights supports Washington County's application to the Transportation Economic Development(TED) program for funding for improvements to the TH 36/CSAH 151 Manning Avenue interchange. We understand this program is designed to help meet the State's transportation and economic development needs by these strategic transportation investments that which then levera substantial private investment that create and preserve high-wage jobs. For several years,the City of Oak Park Heights, Washington County, and MnDOT have working to address saieiy, mobility issues and to enhance quality economic leve ment opportunities along the TH 36 Corridor. Improvements to this interchange • e�niip d to substantially aid in those efforts. If you have any questions, comments,or concerns,please do not hesi -to onta me Kind Regards, Eric Johnson, City Administrator Cc: Ann Pung-Terwedo, Senior Planner 34 of 37 1 MAOSC July Federal Le islative U date CONGRESSIONAL SCHEDULE: During the months of June and July,the U.S.House spent much of its time discussing the annual budget and spending bills,despite the continued absence of a budget resolution. The U.S. Senate focused on negotiating their version of healthcare legislation designed to repeal large portions of the Affordable Care Act. The Senate Majority has released its latest in a series of healthcare legislation,which Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would like to have Members consider before the end of July. UNITED STATES SENATE: Affordable Care Act Repeal:Negotiations continue in the Senate over legislation designed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act(ACA). Over the past month, a number of revisions have been made to the legislation after it became apparent that a majority of Members opposed the legislation. These revisions have been unable,however,to garner a majority of support and so the bill's future remains unclear as leaders in the Senate continue to make changes to the legislation. The Senate leadership has also proposed voting on legislation that would only repeal the ACA without replacing it. This approach has also met resistance. Appropriations: The Senate Appropriations Committee approved funding allocations for its 12 subcommittees, setting up different levels of spending with the House over a number of allocations including defense,homeland security,transportation and the Department of Health and Human Services(HHS). While the House is using spending levels from its draft budget resolution,the Senate has decided to work from current-year levels in the hope of a bipartisan budget deal in the fall. The Senate allocations total $1.07 trillion in base discretionary funding and$103.7 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations funds,which do not count against the spending caps under the 2011 Budget Control Act(BCA). Senate appropriators allocated less for defense spending than the House but more for the Labor-HHS-Education and Transportation- Housing and Urban Development bilis. The Senate Budget Committee used the same topline funding level as Fiscal Year 2017(FYI 7)which is$62 billion less that the top number used by the House and$5 billion above the caps set in the 2011 BCA. UNITED STATES HOUSE: Budget: The House budget for Fiscal Year 2018 (FYI 8)cleared the Budget Committee on July 19,2017. The budget,which calls for more than $200 billion in spending cuts,has been designated as the intended vehicle for moving tax reform legislation through Congress that would not require bipartisan support to pass. It may face tough opposition to passage on the floor of the House of Representatives as some Republicans have raised concerns. The proposal seeks to balance the budget. The resolution,which is largely a blueprint for future spending, assumes the House-passed Affordable Care Act repeal bill and its $800 billion in Medicaid cuts will become law. It also assumes that Congress will reshape Medicare by converting some of the program to a premium support model,where seniors are given a flat amount to pay for medical services. Altogether,the budget resolution looks to cut$1.5 trillion in Medicaid spending and 35 of 37 i $487 billion in Medicare spending over the next 10 years. The budget also assumes billions of dollars in cuts to domestic spending,which would reduce the federal medical research investment.But because of the delay in finalizing the FYI funding, lawmakers only now have Iess than three months until FYI begins. Tax Reform: The House Budget Resolution is one step in the House Leadership's plans to overhaul the tax code this year. An instruction included in the budget resolution to use budget reconciliation to pass a tax bill means that legislation would be able to pass both chambers with only a simple majority.But it also constrains the bill,requiring that it be deficit-neutral and that its provisions relate directly to the budget. There is already a fair amount of disagreement, however,among the majority as two members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus announced their opposition to a border adjustment, a cornerstone of the House tax plan. The provision,which would tax imports and exempt exports, is one of the main ways House leaders hope to generate the revenue needed to make desired tax cuts.House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady(R-TX)has acknowledged that changes need to be made to the proposal,but he continues to advocate for the idea. FAA Reauthorization: The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved a bill, H.R. 2997, on June 27, 2017 to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)by a vote of 32-25, and now the measure has been sent to the full House of Representatives for consideration. The bill has faced a series of delays,however, due to a controversial proposal to shift air traffic control(ATC)into a nongovernmental entity. In fact,House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster(R-PA)proposed a similar measure in the last Congress to rework ATC,but the legislation never received a floor vote in the House of Representatives. The legislation has remained controversial in this Congress. The House Appropriations Committee approved a spending bill for Fiscal Year 2018 on July 17,2017 by a vote of 31-20 that opposes the ATC privatization position taken by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. WHITE HOUSE: Infrastructure Approval Process: On June 9,2017, President Trump called for major changes to the infrastructure approval process,vowing to ease the wait time for federally funded projects. This announcement came as the President was speaking at the Department of Transportation (DOT),where he called on all federal agencies to streamline review processes and said his Administration may penalize agencies that consistently delay projects by missing deadlines. The President also announced the creation of a council to help infrastructure project managers navigate the bureaucracy, in part by creating an online dashboard for project tracking. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, as she introduced the President at the DOT, said her agency issued a notice in the Federal Register seeking suggestions to help her agency improve permitting.Prior to this speech,the President met with about a dozen heads of state transportation departments and U.S.DOT leaders for a discussion on how the federal government can shift responsibility for review processes to the states. Water Rule: Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)Administrator Scott Pruitt initiated the repeal of the previous Administration's water jurisdiction regulation by issuing a proposal that would reinstate the 1986 jurisdiction rule and related guidance that the EPA had in place on what 36 of 37 3 waters are subject to federal protections.The proposed repeal, once in final form,will be the first step the current Administration takes in a two-step process to undo the 2015 Clean Water Rule, also known as the Waters of the U.S.rule(WOTUS). The second step,which Administrator Pruitt has said will be completed as early as the end of the year, will involve a rewrite of the 2015 regulation. The significance of this first step is that it removes the 2015 water rule, ending all outstanding federal legal challenges against the regulation. In addition to Speaker Paul Ryan endorsing the newly released proposal, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Bill Shuster(R-PA) and House Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Garret Graves (R-LA)welcomed the announcement in a joint statement. Federal Debt Ceiling: The Congressional Budget Office(CBO)released a report on June 29, 2017 that indicates the Treasury Department will be able to continue borrowing under the current $19.809 trillion debt Iimit into October. This revised CBO report is more specific than their previous projections and in line with what private sector experts had been predicting. This gives Iawmakers additional time to wrestle with the issue. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has been pushing lawmakers to deal with the debt ceiling before they leave for the five-week August break to avoid the potential for any last minute problems,but the extended timeline given by the CBO will likely diminish that effort. CONCLUSION: LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN Federal Relations Group will continue to work diligently on behalf of the Minnesota Association of Small Cities and with the Members of the Minnesota Delegation on the aforementioned issues and continuously report back with updates. Please do not hesitate to contact us at(202) 544-9840 if you have any questions or if there are any areas of interest you would like an update on that were not discussed in this article. 37 of 37