HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-21-14 Worksession Handouts �f
r{
i
4'
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
July 21st, 2014
MEMO
TO: Mayor and City Cou it mbe
FROM: Eric Johnson, City d r r
RE: North Frontage Road eneral Summary of County Proposal
Staff has had an opportunity to review the res nse back from the State and Washington County, Based on
these responses and the continued cost imp cts to the City, Staff would not recommend that the City enter
into this proposal at this time given the terms presented:
Points to consider:
1. The City first and continued to examine this proposal from a REDEVELOPMENT standpoint as
redevelopment was the City's principle reason to initiate this relocation of the frontage road in the first place.
Remember further that on City initiative in 2013 realignment were pursued but due to the State and County's inability
to commit needed funds in that timeline, the project stalled. The City consistently predicated that it was going to
utilize TIF funds for its share and that this was a redevelopment goal. During that process, the City did discuss
taking over the roadway, but this also involved a specific development scenario, other contributions, DEED grants
additional County contributions, and a different roadway layout, etc... all of which were to blend down the City's
costs . Ultimately, in Spring 2014, the Council decided this effort was too expensive. And has since taken the
position that it would not take over this roadway.
2. Upon the City's invitation the County assumed a role to lead this project. The County has now
championed this project as a need to enhance safety and efficient movements for the area. Although we all know
the intersection has been unsuitable for years from a layout perspective, the effective principle of the project by the
State and the County is to shift ownership of the roadway to the City.
3. The County's perspective, that they do not have to contribute anything to solve the layout issues is
interesting, if not conflicted. As it is a County Highway that experiences this problem; not a City Street. Anecdotally,
the problems are caused by the interface with STH 36 which may get worse as the State will likely increase red-light
timing supporting east-west traffic. Secondly, the County's Campus traffic at the start and end of the day are obvious
and is perhaps the largest cause of delays. Despite these obvious impacts, Washington County did not address
these issues in their Layout Approval of the SCRCP. (neither did the State) and now cite it is a City issue to solve
and they do not have to contribute anything or characterize their contributions as a"favor"?
4. Like the City, the State and the County have an obligation to maintain their roadways in a fashion that
are suitable for the area. If their public bodies feel there needs to be improvements it remains their burden to
implement them and not pass these requirements to other units of government without there being a clear and
identifiable benefit or clear economic trade-off to consider that is unique to such receiving party. There is not an
immediate plan for construction nor even a willingness to include in the agreement a commitment to a Tax
Abatement to aid the City in offsetting land acquisition or other costs.
5. The proposal requires the City not only take over the new areas of the frontage road, but also the
600+/-feet of the current frontage roadway further increasing the City's burden beyond the new frontage road areas.
Further driving costs to the City. This is a net increase of 1,350 feet of roads. And, the State is not proposing to fully
reconstruct the 300' of Oren Ave. The City should not be adding to its roadway burden without at least a reciprocal or
equitable benefit that is specifically identified and demonstrated to pay for it.
6. Commentary that this area unsafe is debatable. However, there appears to not be an immediate
safety issue; (see Chief of Police letter) yes there can be delays during certain times of the day. But safety is not an
apparent concern. Comparatively to the south frontage road, it has vastly fewer incidents. Accidents can always
happen regardless of layout. Did the State take delays and impacts to the County roadway in its EIS in its SCRCP
analysis? Did the County effectively advocate for changes when it had the opportunity in its consent or review action
of the SCRCP. It is a plain fact that if there are safety concerns, large or small, these are on County and State roads,
not City roads and thus are not a direct City responsibility.
7. Both State and County are positioned to insist that the City take over the roadway or they will not
proceed. Apparently, the concern for resolving the inherent intersection deficiencies is secondary to their interest in
transferring of the road ownership to the City. Again, Washington County did not address these issues in their Layout
Approval of the SCRCP. (Neither did the State) and now both cite it is a City's issue to solve for them?
8. The overall costs of this project in 30 years will be between $1.6 million and $2.4 million dollars—See
Chart below. The City already faces a $3 million dollar cost for milling and overlaying of other City streets —67,000
linear feet - within the coming near-term years and which is not funded as it is, this includes an immediate need to
mill&overlay a former State Frontage Road taken by the City in the mid 1990's and is estimated to cost+/-$244,000.
It is 4,700 linear feet from Norrell Ave. to 58th Street(Neal Ave).
9. The current market value of the property (shown in the red area in the map below) is $6.9 Million
dollars and generates City taxes in the amount of$55,414 per year (payable 2015). The City total costs and a one-
time life-cycle (30 years) of the roadway would total $2.1 million dollars under this proposal. To pay for this the City
would need to net $8,000,000+/- in NEW development and carry it for the term. We know the Lowe's
building/property is valued at $9,000,000 and Stillwater Motors is at$3.8 million. This tells us that such a value of a
development is unlikely, especially over a thirty year period. Commercial property values drop significantly as they
age, especially by year 30. And, as we know, the City has endured massive tax base erosion though value reduction
on a veritable plethora of tax — value reduction petitions over the last five years shifting burdens to residential
taxpayers.
10. Mr. Chiglo has stated that their improvement funding is to be derived from State Trunk Highway Fund,
not SCRCP funding. And,that this money is only available one time. If MNDOT's goal/policy is to divest themselves
of long-term street maintenance, which is a reasonable plan, then that plan also works a few years from now, when
the City might become a STATE AID CITY, and accomplishes their goal. If MNDOT's true goal is to eliminate long-
term maintenance burdens... is the State in the future going to decline similar funding if a more affordable bargain or
State Road Aids were available to the City? Likely not. If it does, then MNDOT goals are unclear, not "uniform" and
used as leverage only when MNDOT deems fit. This approach should not be placated by any municipality or the
City.
Staff Recommendation:
In short, the City has a goal of long-term tax stability, as such the City cannot afford to enter into this
proposal as it places a significant unfunded financial burden on the City for supporting new roadways.
This is also in consideration of the other unfunded road surfaces that must also be addressed by the City and
whose funding is also indeterminate.
Yes, there are delays and impacts, but these are not as a result of City actions that justify the conveyance of
such significant costs upon the City.And, such concerns about safety by the County and State were certainly
not elevated in the very recent past to the extent they are expressed today nor were these patently prevalent
in their approvals or design of the SCRCP.
Indeed the current layout is challenging and the timing of the new construction would be more efficient than in
later years, but resolving the existing intersection deficiencies is apparently secondary to State and County's
interests in transferring of the road ownership to the City and its long-term costs.
Despite these perspectives, the road is at least as functional as the south frontage roadway and Norrell/
Washington for which there are no immediate plans to solve nor are patently funded. The roads in question
are a County Highway and State Frontage road, if the State and County positions are that it is unsafe, it is their
responsibility to address it.
r1i
f
r
A •4y Ph
60TH STRU T
FM
350
Inflation(2)
Year After
Construction SURFACE MAINTENANCE UnearFeetl'i Cost Ft Base Year Cost 2.00% 3.44% 4.00%
5 Crack Fill,Seal Coat&Patching 11350 $ 5.00 $ 6,750.00 $ 7,452.55 $ 7,993.67 $ 8,212.41
10 Crack Fill,Seal Coat&Patching 1,350 $ 5.00 $ 6,750.00 $ 8,228.21 $ 9,466.49 $ 9,991.65
15 Mill&Overlay 1,350 $ 50.00 $ 67,500.00 $ 90,846.11 $ 112,106.67 $ 121,563.69
20 Crack Fill,Seal Coat&Patching 1,350 $ 5.00 $ 6,750.00 $ 10,030.14 $ 13,276.21 $ 14,790.08
25 Crack Fill,Seal Coat&Patching 1,350 $ 5.00 $ 6,750.00 $ 11,074.09 $ 15,722.32 $ 17,994.40
30 Reclaim&replacement of Pavement&Curbing 1 1,350 $ 350.00 $ 472,500.001 1 $ 855,868.35 $ 1,303,338.33 $ 1,532,505.32
Surface Maintenance $ 567,000.00 $ 983,499.45 $ 1,461,903.69 $ 1,705,057.54
10 Signalizations-Assume done in year 10?(total cost is$200,000) $ 100,000.00 $ 121,899.44 $ 140,244.27 $ 148,024.43
Acquisition of Westbury Property $ 330,000.00 $ 330,000.00 $ 330,000.00 $ 330,000.00
OtherA.nnual Maintenance $ 4,000.00 $ 165,517.00 $ 211,497.00 $ 233,313.00
Grand total-AFTER 30years $1,001,000.00 $ 1,600,915.90 $ 2,143,644.96 $ 2,416,394.97
(1)1,350 feet is the distance from the west end of Fred's Tire to the terminus in front of Westbury-MINUS- 300'of Oren
(2)3.44%is the average of the last seven years of the Construction Cost Index
.»
SC.CE 1R FEEi
o
12"RCP
•RCP
24 RCP
N 4
Y OR
h _ ---
S
ST.CROIX RIVER CROSSING ily11 PREFERREDALTERNATIVE
NORTH
TAGSOAD
;a d MN APPROACH PROJECT V
-•� .. S.P.8214-114
l j,7( 1 I f iw i
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
WASHINGTON COUNTY AND THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
This Memorandum of Understanding(MOU)between Washington County(County), a political
subdivision of the State of Minnesota,the Minnesota Department of Transportation(MnDOT), a
department of the State of Minnesota, and the City of Oak Park Heights(City), a municipal
corporation, is to identify future agreements and their framework to complete future
transportation improvements and jurisdictional transfers in the City.
Article 1 —Nonbinding Memorandum of Understanding
1. Both parties acknowledge that this MOU is a nonbinding statement of intent and
�cknowledgekthe multiple commitments and obligations of each_party necessary_to ____- comment[Mvl]:Risk....no commitment and
construct the proposed frontage roadway located at the northwest corner of State Trunk _
multiple agreements at future times will be
Highway 36(STH 36)and County State Aid Highway 24. (Osgood Ave.) Future required
agreements necessary to fulfill this MOU will be executed by the appropriate parties and
at such time, are subject to the approval of the Washington County Board of
Commissioners,the State of Minnesota and the City of Oak Park Heights City Council.
Article 2—Project Definition and Goal
2. The intersection of the STH 36 North Frontage Road and Osgood Avenue is currently
planned to be constructed at a location nearly adjacent to the intersection of STH 36 and
Osgood Avenue. There is an opportunity to move the frontage road approximately 300
feet north of the planned location. The purpose of this MOU is to develop a partnership
between MnDOT,the County and the City to implement this opportunity and construct
the North Frontage Road in a new location. The new location, as shown on the Project
Plan and attached as Exhibit A,will improve safety on Osgood Avenue and will ensure
long term sustainability for access to the businesses located along the North Frontage
Road.
Article 3—Responsibilities of MnDOT
3. MnDOT will construct a new frontage roadway, connecting existing Oren Avenue with
Osgood Avenue wholly consistent with the Project Plan.Thelap nnedappfepiciate
connection to Oren Avenue will also be constructed by the State of MN at no cost to the
City.Any deviations from the plan shall be subject to the seasept approval of the City,
consistent with the terms of this Agreement.
4. MnDOT will improve the existing north-south segment of Oren Avenue,to include
concrete curb and gutter and a new bituminous surface. MnDOT will obtain soil borings
and design to the frontage road specification the necessary structural strength to
accommodate expected frontage road traffic.
5. MnDOT will use data provided by the City, and other data obtained by MnDOT,to
develop and implement a mitigation plan for potential hazardous materials found in the
structures on the Westbury property and will execute that plan at no cost to the City.
6. MnDOT, at no cost to the City will: abate any hazardous material required by Federal or
State law prior to any demolition and will then demolish the home and other structures
Memorandum of Understand Page 2
North Frontage Road
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Washington County
City of Oak Park Heights
perform any necessary hazardous material disposal and otherwise prepare the site for
road construction.
7. MnDOT will construct any new driveway access needed from the Fury site to be located
South of the frontage road as well as-, wG ng a new access to Oren Avenue from the
Fury Motors North Lot that lies north of the proposed new frontage road alignment. No
part of this expense or any other access construction expenses shall be the direct or
indirect obligation of the City.
8. MnDOT will design the North Frontage Road to incorporate the entire project into the
existing St. Croix Crossing drainage system. MnDOT will update the drainage area map
(Exhibit F)in the COOP agreement(#01432). The new map will be incorporated by
amendment to the COOP. MnDOT will draft the amendment for the map and then send
it to the city for approval. Existing drainage patterns shall be preserved in the area which
is now tributary to the TH 36 storm water drainage systems.
9. MnDOT will provide all inspection services on construction for infrastructure to be
conveyed to the City which shall at a minimum, must ensure that the final improvements
meet the City's established requirements and"as-built"surveys and record plans shall
be afe provided to the City to allow proper mapping into the City systems.
10.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 MnDOT.Any liabilities for"takings"or other condemnation actions
as a result of the implementation of this Plan shall be fully defended and/or paid by the
County and the State of MN.
11.MnDOT will not construct any street lighting(illumination)as part of this project scope. 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.
12.MnDOT shall not construct any plantings,trees or any other organic or inorganic
ornamental elements with the North Frontage Road project. All facilities shall be of
highly durable, maintenance free 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.
Article 4—Responsibilities of the County
13.The County will purchase necessary land to allow for the North Frontage Road to be
constructed as shown in the Project Plan. No part of this expense shall be the direct or
indirect obligation of the City of Oak Park Heights. The County may seek up to 50%cost
share in this acquisition from MnDOT.
14.The County will design the proposed North Frontage Road and Osgood Ave intersection
to accommodate a future traffic signal that will be installed,when warranted and justified,
by the County,with no cost share required from the City of Oak Park Heights as long as
the City's Metropolitan Council establishedOffisial population remains under 5000.
Memorandum of Understand Page 3
North Frontage Road
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Washington County
City of Oak Park Heights
15.The County agrees that it will not close the left-turn in lane(from northbound Osgood
Ave)to the new North Frontage Road(westbound)nor restrict nor alter any other access
to the North Frontage Road without the written consent of the City.
16.The County will be required to purchase multiple segments of temporary easement,to
facilitate the construction of the project as shown in the Project Plan in Exhibit A. These
easements will be made available to MnDOT for construction.
17.The existing portion of 60th Street no longer used will be keleased to the County.The comment[Mv21:??????
County will cause demolition of the roadway, including removal of the bituminous
surfacing and vegetation will be restored as appropriate.
18.Any lands accepted by the City under this Agreement shall be wholly and completely
released by the County to the City without restriction.There are no reservations or rights
expressed or implied being preserved by the County or any other party from this
Agreement or any other prior agreement or contract.The County will ensure to the best
of its ability,that all lands to be conveyed to the City under this Agreement,or as may be
necessary for the perpetuation of the new frontage road area,are free of all other public
or private encumbrances except those belonging to the City.
19.The County intends�o_release the transportation_ease-ment- -over- -the- -existing portion of---- comment[Mvs]:???
601"Street.
----- --- -- - ---- --- --------
Article 4—Responsibilities of the City
20.The City has purchased the"Westbury Property"and will make that land available for
construction the North Frontage Road, by the State of MN.
21.The Westbury Property currently has a single family home built in the 1900s+/-.This
home may have lead and asbestos present.The City of Oak Park Heights haswiu
conducted a hazardous materials assessment and shared the information found with the
County and the State of MN.The State of MN may use the data provided by the City or
may seek alternative review or testing as it may deem necessary.
22.All specifications and designs for the North Frontage Road realignment and any
accesses thereto shall be as approved by the City Engineer for Oak Park Heights.
23.After proper conveyance of the roadway is completed via turnback or other appropriate
agreement,the City of Oak Park Heights shall own and be responsible for all aspects of
this roadway, as located within it's jurisdictional boundary„ including snow and ice
control,future surface major maintenance which may include the following:sealcoating,
mill&overlay, reclaim and future reconstruction of the new North Frontage road
including the current Oren Ave and the area lying east of Oren Ave to Osgood Ave w4t"n
its jUFi6distieR• — - - - --
Formatted:List Paragraph, No bullets or
numbering
Memorandum of Understand Page 4
North Frontage Road
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Washington County
City of Oak Park Heights
24.24. Frontage Road r€tetaining wall specifications will follow MnDOT and State Aid
standards. MnDot shall not turnback the area of the retaining wall until all contractor
warranties have expired and any corrective work is completed.
225. In addition to the other requirements set forth this Agreement,the City will not
assume any ownership of any roadway or infrastructure until such time as the State of
MN also releases the balance of the north frontage road to the City of Stillwater subject
to the MNDOT Contract#01433, paragraph 3.7.
226. Unless approved by fully executed written agreement,the City will not maintain
any facilities that serve a private function, regardless of their location.This includes, but
is not limited to all private infrastructure including any stairways,storm water piping,
private utilities etc. Unless expressly and separately approved by the City,the State of
MN and the County must ensure that all private facilities to be constructed shall not be
located on lands to be conveyed to the City,any discrepancies shall be corrected by the
State of MN and Washington County at their expense.
24:27. All required land acquisitions obtained as part of this project for public purposes
will ultimately be turned over to the City of Oak Park Heights.The City will become the
owner and of the new frontage road segment,would retain ownership of the existing
Oren Avenue,and would assume ownership of the portion of 60th Street N between
Oren and the current boundary with the City of Stillwater. Following the transfer and aAs
a result of the+s transfer:
1) The City will be the exclusive permitting and regulatory authority for the entire
roadway and retain full control over any/all utility locations, use,closures,
easements,weight restrictions and future modifications.
2)Unless altered in this Agreement,the City would be responsible for maintenance
and operations of the roadway as specified above.
Formatted:List Paragraph, No bullets or
Until the transfer is completed MnDot will have jurisdictional control of the North numbering
Frontage Road located within the City of Oak Park Heights Formatted:indent:Lett: o.s^, No bullets or
numbering
Notes:
a. TIF and Abatement provisions have been deleted. t Formatted
b. OPH conditions on the MnDot/Stillwater agreements have been
deleted
c. County position on Traffic light sharing costs has been re-imposed
d. References to South frontage roads have been deleted
e. Cost sharing on Westbury acquisition has been deleted
f. City provisions on costs for engineering supervision has been
deleted
g. References to medians have been removed.
h. ADR-Dispute Resolution provisions have been removed
i. Oren is not proposed to be reconstructed to full frontage road
standards
Memorandum of Understand Page 5
North Frontage Road
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Washington County
City of Oak Park Heights
t— Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.5", No bullets or
numbering