Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
weekly notes - November 30th 2018
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS—WE Y T or: ovember 30*2018 TO: City Council Me ers& to FROM: Eric Johnson,C' Admi r Zoningand Development Items: 1. No New applications have been received. 2. A confirmation has been sent to the Metropolitan Airport Commission confirming the City's appointment of two members planning to serve on their Joint Airport Zoning Board. 3. The City has required the removal of the 12'tall—unpermitted-sign at the Palmer Station development that was placed along Oakgreen Ave. Such sign has been removed at city request;they are permitted a more reasonable sign that is 32 square feet (8'x4')and we expect that to be installed soon.On a related note,the City has released another portion of their Letter of Credit being$391,913.93 as such work is completed—see enclosed.All public work is substantially completed at this time,some final drainage work(private elements)will need to be completed in spring as will a final wear course need to be installed on the roadway.We are awaiting as-builts drawings and these are required prior to the City issuing any home building permits. OTHER ITEMS: • A letter has been sent to Washington County seeking some clarification related to their proposed$5,000,000 local cost contributions for the Manning and STH36 interchange. See enclosed,we will need to give them some time to review and respond.There is a tentatively scheduled public hearing/listening session slated for 1/16/19 from 4 to 6 pm to present the preferred layout to the public.Enclosed is the Interchange Study and the preferred layout map. • Chief DeRosier and I did meet with MNDOT staff to discuss the BLUE LIGHT possibilities.The City should expect that it would be perhaps$2,500+/-(hopefully cheaper per unit if more than one is installed)to install single blue light.The City would be responsible for the design, review of current wiring capacities and the light unit itself. Some other complexities are how these could be staged so as to place an officer in a location where they may see the blue light AND be in a position to pursue.So,more exploration is needed as to where this could be placed and meet these parameters. • The City has not yet received a response from Sen. Housley or Rep.-Elect Christensen; however perhaps they will next week.Enclosed is the final letter as provided to them.Recall,the City is seeking to engage on funding issues related to the Norell Frontage Road and the Xcel IGng Plant valuation matters. • Some concrete apron repairs are needed from the 2016 project,near 65th Street and Ozark Ave.(Jihk)As this project was executed though a joint agreement with Stillwater,I have reached out to them to initiate a repair and establish a claim date if warranties are still in effect Mayor McComber provided: 1. Letter from Govemor-Elect Tim Walz—Dated 11/21/18 2. NLC Weekly dated 11/24/18 3. Metro Cities News for 11/21/18 Please let me know if you have any questions-651-253.7837 Call Anytime. 1 of 47 City of oak Park Heights Page 1 of 1 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N is Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 at Phone(651)4394439•Fax(651)439-0574 November 29,2018 "**via email only: Neil,Ralstonna-msomac.oro*** TO: Neil Ralston,Metropolitan Airports Commission FROM: Eric Johnson,City Administrator RE: JAZB Appointments Dear Neil: Thank you for sharing the information relating to the consideration of appointment of two representatives on the JAZB (Joint Airport Zoning Board)for the Lake Elmo Airport.At this time the City Council has decided to participate and has appointed Mayor Mary McComber and Council Member Mike Liljegren to serve on such JAZB. As follows is their best contact information to provide them data.They can provide alternative information should they believe is appropriate. r1iJ,as • Mary McComber- marvmccomber(@aol.com Metropolitan Airports cDmmisslon 600021kh Avseue BaM,elkoraepotie,MN 6a130.27aa•812-Ma�100•mtlroakpoN,ery /P Odober 28,2018 • Mike Liljegren- liliegrens0comcast.net Mr.Erie Johnson C6yAdministati r Oak Pads Heights 14166 Oak Park Boulevard North Oak Park HegMe,MN 5WII2 Dear Mr.Johnson: In the interim,please let me know if you have any questions. Cora, iu discussed! bahold int gid,Zoning a d•(JAZB)to�o A,� Solely,and Land Use Zoning Ordlname(Airport Zoning Ordinance)for Lake Elmo Airport. Kind regards Airport 6Naly and Land Use Zoning addressed In Minnesota Statute 360.061 Gro gh 3110.074 and n MnDOT Aaronaraics Rubs 8860.1200 and 6800.2400.Through a collaborative pr icon.to JAZBwill seek to develop an Airport Zoning Ordinance tat considers MnDOT's model regulations and schbva a reasonable lovel of eafefy amga eonsdedng oamPstbb canmuNly development.The ordroarnce mud regulate the oreaW n of airport hazards in tta vidnty or Lake Elmo Airport,padkulady off the runway ands. J Stale Statute natures MAC to oleate a JAZB for Lake Brno Airport. The JAZB will ou abl or two I' representatives from ea the AkpMw Zoning and t o representatives from M4C.The communities thalwillHagha,Wnhingfon County,and West Lakeland Townalilp.Baytown Towrhahp,lake Elmo,Oak Pads In order to move forward w8h this preceae,MAC requesta that each affected cormnurdly,appoint two repreeentatNeB to V.'Poa in the Jdnl Airport Zoning Board for Lake Elmo Airport within 60 days of receiving this notice.Each oommaety may aim identify up to two Individuals as shemab members who can serve in to evert that a primary member is aboard. Eric Johnson Each rammady has the option to dsdd.nor participate on theJAZB.Be advised gal state In.allows 6le participating members of the JAZB to adopt and enform an Airport ZonbV Ordinance in N aRedad commmnWm rdgardlese of padtcipaton an the JAZB.Plena tet us know If you decide not to Join the City Administrator JAZB.Also note tat failure to respond or appoint two representatives within 60 days win be taken as a decision to not Joh the JAZB. We kook forward to receiving Information for appoirdmerde.If you would Ike additional iinfomation regarding fomalabon of the JAZB for Lake Elm Airport,plasse contact NNI Ralston,Airport Planner, .1/8121728-8120. Sinceroly, Bridget M.Rid,P.E.Vim Preslderd,Planning and Development 2 of 47 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 November 26,2018 TO: Olivia Gavic,Creative Homes Inc. 707 Commerce Dr.,Suite 410 Woodbury,MN 55125 RE: Letter of Credit Reduction request—Plan B—Elements-$391,913.93 Dear Ms.Gavic I am in receipt of the check to the City required for the Palmer Station related items as invoiced by the City #1492. At this time the City is willing to reduce a portion of the security LOC.The purpose of the security is to ensure final,functional and operational completion of such elements as approved. We have made the following determination: 1. The Agreed upon security and as provided in the Developer's Agreement is$1,090,370.00 2. Previous Reductions have totaled $71,022.94 3. The City will reduce that amount further by $393,913.93 4. The new LOC balance is $625.433.13 As the project progresses should you wish further reductions please let me know. Recall again,the City requires that the sign installed along OAKGREEN AVE be removed and no sign be installed until a permit is requested and issued.A deadline was given for 11/28; enforcement action will be taken on 11/29 which may preclude any further issuances of building permits and or other allowance. Remo sign promptly. S' son mistrator Cc: Mark Vierling,City Attorney t Lee Mann,City Engineer fit• 3 of 47 Highway 36 and Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) Interchange Study: Final Report Washington County, MN Prepared by: Date: November 2018 SRF No. 1810207 4 of 47 Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary........................................................................................1 InterchangeStudy...........................................................................................3 Purposeof Study.....................................................................................................................3 Goalsand Objectives.............................................................................................................3 Stakeholder and Public Involvement...........................................................4 ProjectManagement Team...................................................................................................4 LocalAdvisory Team.............................................................................................................4 PublicOutreach......................................................................................................................4 Existing Conditions and Constraints.............................................................6 Traffic.......................................................................................................................................7 Bike and Pedestrian Accommodations................................................................................7 Safety........................................................................................................................................8 LandUse..................................................................................................................................9 Utilities...................................................................................................................................11 FutureConditions..........................................................................................12 Traffic.....................................................................................................................................12 EconomicDevelopment.....................................................................................................13 ConceptualDesigns......................................................................................15 Phase 1 —Initial Concept Alternatives Evaluation..........................................................15 Phase 2—Refined Concept Alternatives Evaluation.......................................................18 Phase 3—Final Concept Alternatives Analysis................................................................22 Study Recommendations and Next Steps................................................29 Recommendations................................................................................................................29 Scheduleand Next Steps.....................................................................................................29 Highway 36 and Manning Avenue i SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 5 of 47 Executive Summary Highway 36 is an east-west,principal arterial highway that provides a critical connection for northeast Twin Cities communities to the greater Minneapolis-St.Paul area,and beyond. Several key capital improvement projects have recently been constructed along Highway 36,or are currently under design,aimed at improving traffic safety and operations. Where Highway 36 intersects with Manning Avenue(County State Aid Highway 15) is the subject of this report.This at-grade signalized intersection is fraught with safety and operational deficiencies, experiences high congestion during peak hours and special events,and is approaching its full capacity.The existing intersection is characterized as having above average crash and severity rates compared to similar intersections.Pedestrian,bicyclist and snowmobiles safety at the intersection is also a concern as crossing times are long and feel unsafe to users. The project has received$7 million in federal funding to date and is programmed for construction in year 2021.This funding includes caveats about perpetuating the existing frontage road connection north of Highway 36, accommodating a continuous 10-foot trail along the east side of Manning Avenue,and maintaining local access to the existing trail on the west side of Manning Avenue, south of Highway 36. This situation prompted Washington County to embark on a detailed study of existing conditions and future considerations.To do so effectively,the County sought out participation and representation from several key agencies with strong interest in this project,including;FHWA; MnDOT;Cities of Grant,Stillwater,Lake Elmo and Oak Park Heights;Stillwater Township; Metropolitan Council;and Browns Creek Watershed District. Washington County recognized that a robust public outreach plan,including a public open house and meetings with local property owners/developers,was needed to gain additional perspective on local issues and concerns. Meetings with developers unveiled that potential future development in the northeast and southeast quadrants are key considerations as it relates to implementing improvements at this intersection. This report documents the public and agency inclusion process,goals and objectives of the project, and how conceptual design alternatives were developed,screened and evaluated.In total, twenty initial intersection alternatives were analyzed and subsequently pared down to five that seemed to best meet the goals and objectives of the project. Upon further refinement and analysis of the remaining five alternatives and various sub-alternatives,coupled with a sensitivity analysis based on potential development,the study concludes that the"Loop in SW Quad+ Loop in NE Quad" should be carried forward into the Preliminary Design/NEPA process.This sub-alternative to the original"Loop in the SW Quad"best addresses the project goals and objectives at a reasonable cost. It also offers the best contitluity of the existing frontage road system and assures continued functionality with planned developments and future frontage road connections. Highway 36 and Manning Avenue 1 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 6 of 47 ►. w� II I l Figure 1—Highway 36 and Manning Avenue Study Location Highway 36 and Manning Avenue 2 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 7 of 47 Interchange Study Purpose of Study Highway 36 is an east-west,principal arterial highway that provides a critical connection for northeast Twin Cities communities to the greater Minneapolis-St. Paul area,and beyond. Commuter, freight,and recreational traffic use this route as a critical link to key regional,interregional,and interstate (e.g.,western Wisconsin) destinations.With the recent opening of the new Saint Croix River Crossing,Highway 36 is under additional pressure to efficiently move large volumes of regional traffic. Several key capital improvement projects have recently been constructed along Highway 36,or are currently under design,aimed at improving traffic safety and operations. Manning Avenue intersects Highway 36,approximately%-mile west of the Stillwater Boulevard interchange,and is the subject of this report.This location is fraught with safety and operational deficiencies that warranted a more detailed study of existing conditions and future considerations. The purpose of this study is to identify a solution(s) that best addresses the goals and objectives,as defined for this project,that can be carried forward to the next phase of the project. Goals and Objectives Washington County,and their partners,embarked on a study to identify a solution(s) that will best address the purpose and need for a capital improvement project at Highway 36 and Manning Avenue that also aligns with the long-term corridor vison for Highway 36,and the needs of the local communities. The following is a general list of goals and objectives that were developed for this project: • Address the existing deficiencies,including the inadequate intersection spacing,increased congestion and delays,and safety concerns. • Apply access management guidelines to the Manning Avenue corridor while providing appropriate access for existing businesses,residential properties,potential development,and individual property owners. • Improve safety,capacity,and operation of the Highway 36 and Manning Avenue intersection and surrounding area. • Utilize a comprehensive agency and public engagement process to achieve community acceptance. • Maintain the long-term transportation goals of MnDOT,Washington County,the Cities of Grant,Lake Elmo,Oak Park Heights,Stillwater,and Stillwater Township. • Consider bicycle,pedestrian,and ADA facilities along Manning Avenue. Highway 36 and Manning Avenue 3 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 8 of 47 Stakeholder and Public Involvement Project Management Team A Project Management Team (PMT) consisting of the immediate roadway jurisdictional agencies was formed and included representatives from Washington County and MnDOT,with assistance from SRF Consulting Group.The PMT was tasked with the guiding the project,developing study criteria and metrics for concept evaluation, and informing the technical analysis. The PMT developed a Public Involvement Plan (PIP) that was used as a guide to articulate the goals,objectives and strategies for public involvement;to identify key stakeholders;to define roles of decision-making and advisory bodies;to identify available communication methods;and to set the goals for public involvement activities. In total,the PMT met ten(10) times between June 2017 and October 2018. As the project has been awarded$7 million in federal funding thus far,the PMT met specifically with MnDOT Metro State Aid to initiate the federal-aid process. In addition,the PMT reached out to various functional groups at MnDOT and representatives from FHWA to share project progress, initial findings,and to seek early input on the project development process. Local Advisory Team Due to the large and diverse number of project stakeholders,a Local Advisory Team(LAT)was also formed to provide additional input,share local insights,and to advise the project process.The LAT consisted of agency staff from the Cities of Grant,Stillwater,Lake Elmo and Oak Park Heights; Stillwater Township,Metropolitan Council and Browns Creek Watershed District;and was guided by a subset of the PMT. Between July 2017 and June 2018,the LAT met four(4) times to provide early input regarding project issues and concerns,local community considerations, status of planned land use and future development,and provided feedback on conceptual interchange alternatives. The LAT was provided periodic updates on the project process and direction. Input received during LAT meetings was taken back to the PMT to help further refine concept evaluations and to identify additional/on-going coordination needs. Public Outreach As noted above,a primary task of the PMT was to identify stakeholder groups,share project information,and to gain community acceptance.To help communicate key project information,a project website was established and maintained by Washington County at: www.co.washington.mn.us/Manning36Interchange.The project website includes an overview of the project goals,schedule,and feedback gathered at public open houses. Interested parties can also use the site to subscribe to project update communications. Highway 36 and Manning Avenue 4 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 9 of 47 Property Owner/Developer Meetings Several property owner meetings were held during the study with property owners/developers adjacent to the project location.The purpose of these meetings was to share information regarding the study and to learn more about the property owner's future development plans,as follows: • Central Commons II LLC—recently acquired several parcels in the southeast quadrant of the intersection and is seeking to attract potential developers. • Lakeview Hospital—recently acquired a large parcel of land in the northeast quadrant of the intersection and have plans to develop this site but have not provided a specific timeframe. • Applewood Hills Golf Course—located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection are interested in the project but have no immediate plans for redevelopment. Ongoing discussions will be needed with each of these property owners,as plans firm up,including the timing and proximity of new development and additional traffic that may be drawn to the area. Public Open House A public open house was held on April 19,2018 at the Washington County Government Center. The purpose of the open house was to share study goals and objectives,review concepts,and to gather public input.The meeting format was an open house style with no formal presentation. Several informational boards and layouts of the project area were on display with project related information and the conceptual alternatives under consideration. Approximately 80 individuals signed in as attendees and they were encouraged to roam around the room to review the boards and layouts and ask questions of staff.They were also encouraged to fill out comment cards with any additional thoughts,issues,or concerns they might have,which are summarized anonymously on the project website. Several other media platforms were utilized to advertise this meeting,including a project website posting,sponsored Facebook ads,South Washington County Bulletin,The Stillwater Gazette,The Lowdown(presspubs.com), Twincities.com,Pioneer Press,and the City of Lake Elmo"The Fresh"Weekly Newspaper. ir "4 xi ter` Photos from Public Open House held on April 19,2018 Highway 36 and Manning Avenue 5 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 10 of 47 Existing Conditions and Constraints Highway 36 is an east-west,principal arterial highway providing a critical connection for northeast Twin Cities communities to the greater Minneapolis-St. Paul area and beyond. Commuter,freight, and recreational traffic use Highway 36 as a link to regional,interregional,and interstate (e.g., western Wisconsin) destinations. Highway 36 is a four-lane divided,rural-section highway.The posted speed on Highway 36 is 65 mph at the intersection with Manning Avenue.East of the Highway 36 and Manning Avenue intersection,the posted speed transitions to 60 mph. Highway 36 intersects Manning Avenue approximately%-mile west of the Highway 36 and Stillwater Boulevard (CSAH 5)interchange,and 1 mile east of Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17),as shown in Figure 2.Highway 36 and Manning Avenue is an at-grade signalized intersection with dedicated turn lanes. Manning Avenue is an important north-south,A-minor arterial roadway in Washington County,running from Interstate 94 in the City of Lake Elmo to US 8.For the first 1.5 miles north of Highway 36,Manning Avenue is a four-lane divided roadway with a raised center median,but changes to a 2-lane undivided rural section after that.The posted speed limit on Manning Avenue north of Highway 36 is 55 mph. South of Highway 36,Manning Avenue is a two- lane,rural roadway serving as the only current access to the Sanctuary of Lake Elmo neighborhood and is posted with an advisory speed of 20 MPH. a Stillwater 1 Mile Spacing 3/a Mile Spacing "•Bth Si h Stillwater Area High School Figure 2—Highway 36 and Manning Avenue Highway 36 and Manning Avenue 6 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 11 of 47 Traffic Existing traffic volumes on Highway 36 are approximately 42,000 vehicles per day west of Manning Avenue and approximately 41,000 vehicles per day east of Manning Avenue.The existing traffic volume on Manning Avenue north of Highway 36 is 16,800 vehicles per day and south of Highway 36 is 500 vehicles per day. Figure 4 in the Future Conditions sections shows the existing traffic volumes compared to the future expected traffic volumes. A peak hour intersection operations analysis was prepared for the Highway 36 and Manning Avenue intersection using the Synchro/SimTraffic model.The intersection operations modeling results are measured in terms of a Level of Service(LOS),which indicates how well an intersection is operating. Intersections are ranked from LOS A through LOS F.The LOS results are based on the average delay per vehicle.LOS A indicates the best traffic operations (average delay per vehicle of less than 10 seconds) and LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity(average delay per vehicle greater than 80 seconds). In general,intersections with LOS A through LOS D are considered operating under capacity and are acceptable. The Highway 36 and Manning Avenue intersection currently operates at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour and a LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. See Future Conditions section for projected operations analysis information. Bike and Pedestrian Accommodations A trail currently exists on the east side of Manning Avenue north of Highway 36.While there are existing crossing accommodations at Highway 36 and Manning Avenue,it is a difficult intersection to cross due to the number of lanes,high speed condition and large traffic volumes.The crossing distance from the south side of Highway 36 to the trail on Manning Avenue north of Highway 36 is approximately 235 feet(see figure 3 below). Pedestrians and bicyclists experience extensive delays when waiting to cross the intersection because of the amount of"green time"that is allocated to Highway 36.Based on input received at the Open House,many of the users are coming from the south trying to get to the Browns Creek Trail,which is located 2.5 miles to the north of the intersection.There is also a gap in the trail system south of the Highway 36 intersection where pedestrians and bicyclists must travel 150 feet on the street until they can connect to a local off-road trail system. a. ( 1;Si;ting Tnatl d Y yistu Figure 3—Existing Trails and Crosswalks Highway 36 and Manning Avenue 7 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 12 of 47 Safety Between year 2011 and year 2015,there were a total of 56 crashes at the Highway 36 and Manning Avenue intersection.'These crashes resulted in one fatality, five non-incapacitating injuries,and 15 possible injuries.Approximately two-thirds of the crashes (35 crashes) were property damage only crashes with no apparent injuries.Table 1 tabulates the crashes by severity for the Highway 36 and Manning Avenue intersection. Table 1. Highway 36 and Manning Avenue Crashes by Severity(2011-2015) Time Period K A B C N Total 2011-2015 1(2%) 0(0%) 5(9%) 15(27%) 35(63%) 56 K=fatal crashes,A=incapacitating injury crashes,B=non-incapacitating injury crashes,C=crashes with possible injury,N=property damage only with no apparent injuries The most frequent type of crash at the Highway 36 and Manning Avenue intersection is a rear-end crash. Rear-end crashes accounted for 32 crashes,or 57 percent,of the crashes for the five-year period from 2011 to 2015.Rear-end crashes are characteristic of congested conditions on high- speed,high volume roadways with traffic signals. Forty-nine(49),or 88 percent,of the Highway 36 and Manning Avenue crashes were multi-vehicle crashes.Table 2 tabulates the crashes by crash type for the Highway 36 and Manning Avenue intersection. Table 2. Highway 36 and Manning Avenue Crash Type(2011-2015) Crash Type TH 36/Manning Avenue Intersection Statewide Average(1) Rear End 32(57%) 32% Sideswipe Passing 9(16%) 12% Left Turn 1(2%) 5% Run Off Road(Left and Right) 3(5%) 15% Right Angle 5(9%) 16% Right Turn 1(2%) 1% Head On 1(2%) 5% Sideswipe Opposing 0(0%) 2% Other 4(7%) 12% Total 56 - (1)Minnesota Statewide average for 2015 obtained from Minnesota Department of Public Safety Comprehensive Annual Traffic Crash Data Reports t The five-year period from 2011 to 2015 is the most recent available crash information for the Highway 36/Manning Avenue intersection. Highway 36 and Manning revenue 8 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 13 of 47 A crash analysis was completed for the Highway 36 and Manning Avenue intersection for the five- year period from 2011 to 2015.The intersection crash analysis includes two measures of effectiveness:intersection crash rates (actual and critical crash rates) and severity rates.Table 3 tabulates the crash analysis results for Highway 36 and Manning Avenue intersection. Table 3. highway 36 and Manning Avenue Crash Analysis Intersection Expected Crash Actual Crash Critical Crash Expected Severity Rate Rate cap Rate Rate Severity Rate(a) TH 36/Manning 0.45 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.97 Avenue (1)Expected crash rate and severity for high-volume,high-speed signalized intersections.From MnDOT's 2015 Intersection Green Sheets (five years of crash data). The expected crash rate for intersections similar to the Highway 36 and Manning Avenue is 0.45 crashes/million entering vehicles (MEV).The actual crash rate is 0.64 crashes/MEV,the Highway 36 and Manning Avenue intersection is considered a sustained crash location.This indicates that more crashes have been observed at this intersection compared to other intersections with similar traffic volumes, speed limits,and traffic control across Minnesota.The severity rate for Highway 36 and Manning Avenue also is greater compared to other intersections with similar characteristics across Minnesota. MnDOT's intersection ranking by crash costs,which is a measure of annualized crash costs,lists Highway 36 and Manning Avenue as the 75th intersection out of 8,000 intersections in Minnesota? Land Use Land in the immediate vicinity of the intersection of Highway 36 and Manning Avenue is mostly undeveloped.Parcels in the northeast quadrant of the intersection have been acquired by Lakeview Hospital but remain primarily undeveloped aside from a garden center which can be accessed from 62nd Street. Central Commons II LLC has acquired land in the southeast quadrant of the intersection which presently remains undeveloped. Land in the southwest quadrant of the intersection is mostly owned by the State of Minnesota and remains undeveloped.Applewood Hills Golf Club exists in the northwest quadrant of the intersection which can be accessed from the 60th Street frontage road. See Figure 4 for present zoning boundaries near the Highway 36 and Manning Avenue intersection. 2[MnDOT 2015 Intersection Toolkit] Highway 36 and Manning Avenue 9 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 14 of 47 i Y 4 M •. ly � t. I� , L k ^ LEGEND ,~ a �� � Q1� xrsmeNrxu F {J PMSS.RECREATION.PUBLIC,OPEN SPACE ABRICILTURAL O BUSNl11 PARRS,COM[RCIAL Figure 4—Highway 36 and Manning Avenue Present Zoning Boundaries Highway 36 and Manning Avenue 10 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 15 of 47 Utilities Along the south side of Highway 36,Xcel Energy owns and operates a 115 kv transmission line and a 345 kv transmission line. Both transmission lines parallel Highway 36 approximately 500 feet south of Highway 36 and include large,lattice-style transmission towers in close proximity to Manning Avenue. A utility meeting was held with Xcel Energy on January 10,2018 to introduce the interchange study to Xcel representatives and gain a better understanding of design and construction parameters associated with potential impacts to the transmission lines.The meeting was attended by Washington County,MnDOT,SRF and Xcel representatives.Key design parameters and potential relocation implications were discussed. Both transmission lines are located within a private utility easement such that Xcel may be eligible for reimbursement for any relocation costs necessitated by the project.As relocation work for these transmission lines may be costly,intersection concepts were developed to minimize impacts. Follow up meetings with Xcel will likely be required. 1 61 f� v ,t a i ImageGoogle Highway 36 and Manning avenue 11 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 16 of 47 Future Conditions Traffic Traffic volumes on Highway 36 are projected to increase to 49,000 to 51,000 vehicles per day by Year 2040 based on the current County Travel Demand Model taking into current land use assumptions.Traffic volumes on Manning Avenue north of Highway 36 are projected to approach 20,000 vehicles per day by Year 2040.Figure 5 displays existing and future traffic volumes at the intersection. The Highway 36 and Manning Avenue intersection is forecasted to be over-capacity and operate at LOS F in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours by year 2040 under No Build conditions.The southbound Manning Avenue approach is projected to experience the greatest delay due to most of the traffic signal"green time"being allocated to Highway 36 (i.e.,more than four minutes of delay under the 2040 No Build Alternative).The vehicle queue for the left tum from eastbound Highway 36 to northbound Manning Avenue also is expected to spill back into Highway 36 mainline traffic, impacting Highway 36 operations. W I I' aq s !ire Legend x,xxx —Existing 2018 ®—Future 2040 17,000 -� NOTE:Futun traffic Yo rN tI0 not iC Wnt .& e for Potential development nen alw�en. 1{1 I � OCL e► 42.000 41,000 11, ?I& Traffic Distribution " � X04 -- .; ay 14% 16% 69% 1% Figure 5—Existing and Future Traffic Volumes Highway 36 and Manning Avenue 12 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 17 of 47 Economic Development Discussions with adjacent land owners and developers during the study revealed potential plans for future development in the immediate vicinity of the Highway 36 and Manning Avenue intersection, as follows; • Lakeview Hospital—recently acquired a large parcel of land in the northeast quadrant of the intersection and have plans to develop this site but have not provided a specific timeframe. • Central Commons II LLC—recently acquired several parcels in the southeast quadrant of the intersection and is seeking to attract potential developers. Figure 5 on the previous page shows these potential development areas in blue.These developments,if fully realized,could generate significant additional trips to/from the Hwy 36 and Manning intersection.Therefore,trip generation estimates were developed assuming a full-build-out condition for both sites by year 2040,as follows; • Full development in the northeast quadrant(approximately 13,000 additional daily trips) • Full development in the southeast quadrant (approximately 14,000 additional daily trips) The timing and intensity of these potential developments remains unclear at this time.However,a Sensitivity Analysis was performed as part of this study to gauge how select interchange concepts would respond to this potential situation. See the Conceptual Design section of this report for more information related to the Sensitivity Analysis. For additional reference,Figure 6 on the following page shows a map of future land use in the project area according to the Metropolitan Council 2030 Regional Planned Land Use. i I Highway 36 and Manning Avenue 13 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 18 of 47 ,f RX r w� 1 P�lanmd Land Uw AWftKurW Oull4pUml D.4WprrwM RW w Lerynid Resid.M, r ark uW R—Mb skgo Fm*RxidwW OW 9Wp N RsnkW4 UN M09h.My Rewdw" Pl"- Way U e.,Reeds) YYI I Con.&" _:RW"(mc LRTJ k. AkW NelWhorW Opsn WmWeYr Judet nzourkl i=Wksgiop2l1�pnned Figure 6—Future Land Use Map Highway 36 and Manning Avenue 14 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 19 of 47 Conceptual Designs The development of the conceptual design alternatives for the Highway 36 and Manning Avenue interchange study were centered around the goals and objectives established for the project.The conceptual design development and screening process consisted of three general phases.Phase 1 was the initial concept evaluation and included approximately 20 alternatives.These alternatives were screened at a high level and five concepts were carried forward for further evaluation.Phase 2 consisted of a more detailed analysis of the five concepts and yielded several sub-alternatives to consider.Phase 3 introduced a Sensitivity Analysis to better understand how the remaining alternatives would respond to potential development and traffic demands with the goal of narrowing them down to one or two to carry forward into the next phase of the project. Phase 1 - Initial Concept Alternatives Evaluation Using the information collected from the traffic studies and future conditions analysis,Phase 1 consisted of developing approximately 20 different alternatives,including both at-grade and grade separated concepts.The concept alternatives considered were all screened using high-level criteria such as response to existing/future traffic demands,size and complexity of concepts,relative costs and impacts,and fit within the local and regional transportation systems. It was concluded by the PMT that the at-grade concepts,including the no-build,would not adequately meet future traffic demands which could cause additional safety and congestion problems. Note that the no-build concept must remain in the project as it will be used as a comparison during the NEPA process. Table 4 on the following page summarizes the initial concept alternative naming conventions and screening thoughts amongst the PMT members. Highway 36 and Manning Avenue 15 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 20 of 47 Conce s Proceed with? Conce_tho hts PMT Thoughts 13l-August-2017 No Build-Signalized Intersection ','V, Need to evaluate the No Build. It is the No Build,so need to evaluate it. No Build-Remove North Frontage Road No Slmilarto No Build w/o north frontage road. No significant difference over No Build(Concept 111). RCUT-Inside Merge .c- May not have enough capacity. This would be a series of evaluations(unsignagzed,signalized,2to 3 Intersections).Put in North Frontage Road. RCUT-Signals Assnhtonceptto Would we wanttwo signals on TH 367 Could check R-Cut Concerns about additional signals added toTH36and weave distantes #3 merge,Ifpooroperations,then add signals7Tooclose to Stillwater Ramps? At-Grade-Quad lntersectlon-SE No Very preliminary analysis suggest less capacity than traditional Circuitous travel and if it does not add capacity,do not want to proceed Intersection. with it.Concerns raised about vehicle conflicts and vehicle turning demands. Green No Concerns about weave for southbound left-tum going to Weave to Stillwater Boulevard is an Issue.Requires signal. Stillwater Blvd South Ramp(crossing two lanes on TH 36 la nes). Loop In SW with Frontage Road 'r Q._ Federal Funding Application Drawing.Missing NB to WB A lot of flexibility with this option.South side has minimal conflicts for ped movement(if providing south access).Variety of options with connections.Could connect to south neighborhood or over to Stillwater connections.Better EB ramp spacing. Blvd.Could remove North Frontage Road and connect to WB on-ramp. Standard Diamond No Not drawn-Replaced by adding Aux lanes. Very likelyto need auxiliary lanes,so#9takes it place. Standard Diamond with Aux Lanes ;.ft „More impactful footprint.Might need more storage if Standard diamond is an expected type of interchange,so should be connecting to CSAH 15. evaluated.Could fine tune ft between a standard and tight configuration. Inherent vehicle conflicts under this option. Tight Diamond with Aux Lanes As sub•cencept to Less property impacts;okay if volume generation to south is More challenging operations/sightlines.Maycause undesired opportunity #9 low.Interchange type not very successful in Wash Co. for north frontage road relocation that violates proper access spacing. Trumpet-SE Quad ,V� Free flowing.Impacts Wash Co property and different than SW Simple free-flowing concept with small bridge width.Loop is on County Loop.Requires two-lane bridge. property.Could be drawn with more free flowing elements.Some concern about proximity to Stillwater Blvd EB ramp. Trumpet-SWQuad Assub-concepttc Free flowing.Impacts to conservation easement?Better This is basically a sub-concept of#7 with removing the north frontage, #7 connection of neighborhood via frontage road?Requires two- neighborhood and no direct connection to Stillwater Boulevard.Concerns lane bridge. about Impacts to Power Line easement. Single Point No Nat the right location for movements,but has a tight footprint. Big and expensive bridge and retaining walls.Does not fit the traffic patterns and heaviest movements conflict. Diverging Diamond No Operationally could work well;but still has crosingof EBto NB Hasthe highest volumes conflicting,similarto the otherdiamond and SBto EB movements. interchange concepts.Concerned about pedestrian crossings.Does have some merits,but does not seem fit travel patterns as well as others. Loop in SE .As poten:;al sub- Similar to Washington County funding application,but flipped This adds potential connections south of concept#11.ReorleatT concept to#11 to the east Intersection on south side to not push traffic to neighborhood Uncontrolled access on TH 36. Split Diamond with Two-Way Frontage Roads rv,Js,. l:AI,I Meimains one TH 36 Access,Enough capacity? It looks like a lot of construction beyond the interchange.Consider one- way vs the two-way frontage road.May be confusing.Should probably d'g rv_dsl deeper into the merits and disadvantages ofthe alternative. Roundabouts-Ramps and North Frontage No Requires 3 bridges.Might be tough with grades.Expensive? Basically R is a off-set single-point(e.g.,TH 36/Rice)with roundabouts. This requires three bridges and is not desirable. Roundabouts-South Ramp and North Ramp/Frontage :•5 1 fda_ 'y Requires only 1 Bridge.Might be tough with grades.Expensive? 6-lane roundabout is undesirable.Suggest modification so that north DrivabIlty with 6 approaches(allow one to be exit only)? intersection becomes two roundabouts(tear-drop design);one that provides connections to the off and on ramp,and the other the north frontage road and Manning. Tight Diamond with Frontage Roads Under No More of a demonstration how a north frontage road could be This Is an idea that could potentially be used with other concepts, accommodated with additional bridges,if desired. however R does not provide a connection to Manning Avenue,which would likely be desired. NW and SW Loops with Frontage Roads No Ramps pulled always from Stillwater Blvd and includes frontage The NW bop would likely negatively Impact the golf course.That loop roads between the Interchanges. does not promote a heavy prove,and actually turns a heavy right-tum into a left-turn which is not desired. HlghT No Still have the weave issue to Stillwater Blvd. Very concerned about weaving issues for SB Manning to EB TH 36 and the weave overto Stillwater Blvd.This does not promote a movementthe County wants to provide. Table 4—Initial Screening of Conceptual Solutions (At-Grade and Grade Separated) Figure 7,on the following page,shows a graphical representation of the conceptual at-grade vs. grade-separated concept alternatives that were subsequently identified for continued analysis. Highway 36 and Manning Avenue 16 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 21 of47 AT-GRADE CONCEPTS GRADE SEPARATED CONCEPTS gn„yb CXW-T. Ohm enbwb Ilseola.d CMdnxt. ynauild SW lao Wah Fran gd S Ft[aamondWNhiwaNh Fqn ead • Ib Bssd+Remor. nh -.—._ SlinIDidl.d piarmund With Auailaa Lanes SI In Ppinl • R[ull�ide Me mmndWKhkw Lt [ants I tllrrncnd '."'t w6 TulE b im l fn SE Wad SF E.a well fns f Tru IIn SW&W Ii httliamnnd YVHd Horlh Fon Rd 4e7eni HWAud SW La •WIh Fent Rtl bi I'I'9A101-_—^- — 6 • fQ NOTE:At-grancepts do not meet traffic demands de or coimprove safety. - Flgum 7—Prdhnlnwy Concept AlbmWvu FLgh—y 36.nd M-..gA— 17 SRF C..Wdng Gnup,Inc 22 of 47 Phase 2 - Refined Concept Alternatives Evaluation Based on the initial screening during Phase 1,five conceptual alternatives were identified that seemed to best meet the project goals and objectives. Conceptual geometric layouts were developed for the remaining five alternatives that depict approximate roadway geometry and relative footprints. These layouts were annotated with dimensions between ramps along Highway 36,potential locations of future frontage road connections,and general comparisons of concept advantages and disadvantages (see Figures 8 to 12 below). As part of the Phase 2 process,the five remaining alternatives were also compared within several categories including interchange operations,overall safety,connection to Stillwater Boulevard,traffic operations,local access operations,and relative costs and impacts.An analysis regarding potential impacts to transmission towers located on the south side of Highway 36 was also taken in account as this may impact the overall project cost.Table 5 shows a matrix comparison of the five remaining concept alternatives and the criteria that was used to further evaluate each concept.This figure demonstrates that the"Loop in SW Quad"concept ranks highest in terms of meeting traffic demands and local access needs,and"average"in terms of overall project impacts/costs. LCloP W &E OVAD faueptwl Faure eonhe�st froutye Rad uni IPeq of a.ilJllr/1e pmrptll .zuer ¢an Sul de fel ti' t, r Iv .t w ... w ., r P -• - • ..� s a i + - • 10J a- a - •- • h UCTION Figure S—Loop in SE Quad Highway 36 and Manning Avenue 18 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 23 of 47 w .. hnrrr 1 36 J- 35 r 00, Concept Advantages: Easy to understandfnavigate a ShortauxlllarVtones on Hwy 36 is Best LOS under full build out • More vehiclelvehicie contlkcts Wight"avoids transmissiQn Precludes i`s N' frontage rd towers limits development In SE quad tocc0ortcrud Inter tion � " i r t AdvanfiFes: a Reduced crash severlty Flexible for frontage rd IN connections • 5E tmnlage rd might attract Impactsralie4 q dpdte c6n c s r'nore kcal 41ps, �,. arns P ry/7t�ntiol stght distance Imes Avoids transmission towers p Retaining walks neemaed i n r � r i I a r, Concepi Advanicges: Concepti?lspdvanfgges, $ • Limited vehicle/vehicle conflicts • Short treat,lane can WB Hwy 36 s • Lang flux.lone on EB Hwy 36 • Impacts transmission towers • Allows for NW frontage rd , Heavy U-turn NB to WB as shown • ConvenientSE frontage road E development happens) connection • Could add NW Loop In fuluretr � � r x r, yd l� 36 Concept Advantages: 'Concept Dfsa v c,— .; • Long aux lanes on Hwy 36 WB 36 .e-e- rrc r.7Qp ' 4Y ConvenientSE frontage road connection ,:mpoc' Could dlrectconnect NE fronfcae rd to ramps fV'DL4 de—q ec prrrenl p i • Only Impacts 2 quads 11101Y� Interchenpr Opertwn Meets epabk evrall NR • 0 EOS/dehy 5—/.b NR-w 't3 Areh NR Sserlw;h NR-gtamrrhdt NR,Stamseehxh BR•ssec/eeh 5R-5xc1eh ER-5—Arth 5R-Kteau—h h SR-9ta tvurh yiew rept hle openrtor H.)36 Op.."— along Nwyy6rtledrem 0 EB-dorrdtO.loweremmy Shc)-WNdIntercimttB° EB-bryerdmanee EBlWB-beget dut.rce .peed mous-aef waeeama EB.rWBavg wave area Overall sutury Muarmrvavehdowhtck O Go CIOQI cmflte pours aen Many ar— EBkft/SBTh.—Rkt(-) limned conflict poem W Redwedcrahaventy(+) Wilted mnflk+a(+) WBoBramploop(-) EBolf.,Ml p(•) EB lefk=nght amilam Muldlaw.patenual mdowtpe I-) All—far natural connectran • , O Connecticut to SnlMarer Mvd and tmdnulry of M—M&A. QI (Imlla wv.fHy 36) Naturalavarwxtoort Natural eennenrtt DbT"lt tmmetlton Ddficuln connectm ter tmvetusonal tatakltK Trunk Rnakim at Ra R4 BS M Adawa!Mmemie»P 1»c.P7 - •- L-1 A"—(NW Quad) eelsartd Ar--faj-, 4-1gablc la.xl Saucer a«a7..hen.a.i,rng ilu naaes ra Mmunng Noaeeeseto P.SanninE N.—taiHnrshy Bervsareer e—mouurtg Allow,fiw1-1 Intal A.—(NEQuad) ysaaci+dryuatc sn.,cc A" `� O drvelogaU!r la»d U,..I-dS, Dlmt— Jet Sand yc Ila.band& Ure6andbn AI( ,1,-t»»e.rsecm 1x 1 • • O Lecal ivae3.(SE Quart) and aUkyrr—q—,1. QIl cl—p lrk L,na Data aaoaa Drrecraeeew DIRSmtlrac lm apace DMEkuli—is,Pta apace a- �Goodar, iaaralro Local Aura Rmkbg h h g5 pl 03 (.0 Minh— ru"manenav C/) (bax•caw m au to as MA..) Impacespow b—apwd tmpatn poweelttleaand pond A-.&S%'qurd Atcdep—rla apttnd Requactlit elimM-1M Rlphr of Way Mont—Rnglt(of Way need, a • 40 (3 a Thea gtuhwv� Twtqudnnr Thntqumdranb E—ilttadranh AN.gtudrar- Coat/laspaa R-A*% 43 U Or 44 dS Jda0'l` Leeyawr6k a1ok+(vrrdly Mm rroare Table 5–Highway 36 and Mannhg Awnus Interahuga Alternalvu Matrix HighwgMaadhlaaningAveone 29. SIiF Cam Ml G—p,1- 26 of 47 Phase 3 - Final Concept Alternatives Analysis As part of the Phase 3 evaluation process,additional traffic analysis was performed to analyze how three of the remaining five alternatives would meet future traffic demands,if development intensity goes beyond what is shown in future land use plans,primarily in the northeast and southeast quadrants.Again,the timing and intensity of these potential development sites remains unclear. Regardless,a sensitivity analysis was performed based on the following assumptions: • Full development in the northeast quadrant(approximately 13,000 additional daily trips) • Full development in the southeast quadrant (approximately 14,000 additional daily trips) Figure 13 below shows how estimated traffic projections (in green boxes) could possibly increase if the potential development sites are fully built-out by year 2040.The estimated net increase by year 2040 is the value in the green boxes less the value in the black boxes. qv+ "R 4dM�inr41'� m M 1tK1� ^Prrr*..dthey :A'''+ Futuna 7+Iadit r ��. u, w a r . ap «,.S. . Figure 13—Potential 2040 Average Daily Traffic Increases(in Green Boxes) The results of the sensitivity analysis showed that of the alternatives that were analyzed,all of them would operate acceptably in 2040.However, some considerations should be noted as it relates to the alternatives: • If the southeast quadrant fully develops,it is estimated that 223 vehicles in the peak hour will use northbound Manning Avenue to access westbound Highway 36. If so,this poses some additional considerations for the SW Loop concept (as originally drawn) because it Highway 36 and Manning Avenue 22 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 27 of 47 would require motorists to perform a U-turn to make this movement.Additional sub- alternatives were subsequently analyzed that could accommodate this movement including a left turn slip-lane,a scissors ramp,and a northeast loop. • If the northeast quadrant does not fully develop,then the SW/NW Loop Concept would change 810 rights (in the peak hour) into lefts for the westbound Highway 36 to northbound Manning Avenue movement,which would negatively affect operations.The NW Loop is also less desirable from a safety standpoint as it includes a sharp curve for exiting high-speed traffic coming from the east. This alternative also precludes a NW Frontage Rd connection which is an important feature for local access and planned future improvements to the Hwy 36/Lake Elmo Avenue intersection to the west. • If roundabouts were introduced at the ramp terminals they would need to be large and multi-lane,making traffic operations and pedestrian crossings challenging,and may feel "unbalanced" on opening day. Off-ramp approaches for the roundabouts would likely operate at LOS E and F,respectively. PMT Conclusions: The PMT discussed the remaining alternatives and narrowed the focus using the following rationale: 1. Loop in SE Quad—While this concept boasts limited vehicle/vehicle conflicts and minimal vehicular delays within the interchange,it was dismissed based on safety and operational concerns including shorter that desired auxiliary lanes on Highway 36,and the high speed eastbound Highway 36 deceleration condition into the loop in the southeast quadrant. Other reasons for dismissal include the undesirable location for a future southeast frontage road, and preclusion of a northwest frontage road connection. 2. Standard Diamond—While this concept is generally perceived as easy to understand/navigate,it was dismissed based on safety and operational concerns including, shorter than desired auxiliary lanes on Highway 36,and additional vehicle/vehicle conflict points at ramp terminals. Other reasons for dismissal include the undesirable location for a future southeast frontage road,and preclusion of a northwest frontage road connection. 3. Double Roundabouts—While roundabouts are known to reduce crash severity and may allow for flexible frontage road connections,they were dismissed based on the need for the roundabouts to be multi-lane and multi-legged,which would likely cause operational deficiencies and make crossings more challenging for pedestrians. 4. Loop in SW Quad—While this concept has a slightly shorter than desired(about 70 feet) auxiliary lane on westbound Highway 36,and requires a U-turn (as originally drawn) for northbound Manning Avenue to westbound Highway 36,it was carried forward because it j manages traffic movements well with minimal vehicle/vehicle conflicts and allows for the northwest frontage road connection.This concept also boasts ample auxiliary lane length on eastbound Highway 36,and allows for a convenient connection for a future southeast frontage road.Additional sub-alternatives will be evaluated to accommodate the northbound to westbound traffic move. 5. Loop in NW/SW Quad—While this concept boasts ample auxiliary lane length on both eastbound and westbound Highway 36,and allows for a convenient connection for a future Highway 36 and Manning Avenue 23 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 28 of 47 southeast and/or northeast frontage road,this concept was dismissed because it precludes a feasible NW Frontage Rd connection,which is an important feature for local access and planned future improvements to the Hwy 36/Lake Elmo Avenue intersection to the west. Moreover,this concept requires a high-speed westbound Highway 36 deceleration condition into the loop in the northwest quadrant(which poses safety concerns) and would turn westbound Highway 36 bound for Northbound Manning Avenue from a right tum movement to a left turn movement(yielding additional intersection delay). In summary,based on the comprehensive analysis and screening performed in Phases 1,2 and 3,the PMT concluded that the"Loop in SW Quad"concept seems to best address the project needs and goals (See Figure 14). LOOP IN SW WUAO Circ.M Ctu.. rtla No19hWest Fran c Road Coniepluaf hihire Narlhei;t+romage �9 C�r'.el a:ep:;•.ale F''I'.I� 4PNkr 6. Rk'En p` .r - Fill • m - a _ ^ F VOW wl+ M i-x is n cc plua 15 aulheasl Frontage Road 1 k"" ;Parrolaseparateproject) 4riw .,,i r W ff r.rrMrl. 9 a ll - CONCEPT-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Figure 14—Loop in SW Quad Loop in SW Quad:This base alternative has many advantages and should continue to move forward in the evaluation process. Figure 14 shows the concept layout as well as future development areas and weave distances.This alternative features a longer auxiliary lane for traffic merging onto eastbound Highway 36 and maintains access to the northwest frontage road. It also allows for a convenient southeast frontage road connection to Stillwater Blvd.This alternative allows for the NW connection which is an important feature for local access and planned future improvements to the Hwy 36/Lake Elmo Avenue intersection to the west. One disadvantage to this concept includes Highway 36 and Manning Avenue 24 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 29 of 47 a shorter auxiliary lane on westbound Highway 36 between the two interchanges. It also appears that there will be impacts to the transmission towers. Loop in SW Quad Sub-Alternatives: As previously noted,the SW Loop base concept(as originally drawn)involves a U-turn for northbound traffic on Manning Avenue to westbound Highway 36.Additional sub-alternatives were developed and analyzed to address this condition including a left turn slip-lane,a scissors ramp,and a northeast loop (see Figures 15 to 17 below). 4 Lanr 114 s+,uwe auao Nanh.osl Frantrge hoed CPld 01 A5 Wif gOrO u irursng�Rwd _. fPeddtreP�r�kWak� .. .rr ♦ w. Figure 15—Loop in SW Quad+Loop in NE Quad Loop in SW Quad +Loop in NEQuad:This alternative offers safety and operational advantages by converting the northbound to westbound lefts into rights by adding the NE Loop.However,if the proposed development in the SW quadrant does not happen than this loop may be more than what is needed.The NE Loop also adds additional project costs/impacts and requires more robust improvements to WB Hwy 36 to accommodate a double merge condition.This option would be more intuitive to drivers on Manning Avenue and allow for a longer NB left turn lane with adequate deceleration length to access the NW Frontage Road.This concept was recommended to be carried forward by the PMT based on these factors. Highway 36 and Manning avenue 25 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 30 of 47 r SUP MMP ENTNANCE rr ■sr �n Hodl/wrst howAlp Road foo"Ar Fowl NNIN1a foul Rand � {Part ala ypurte Prr'Ye+t! ro. r x. r ■ ■ • i — •' • a• a w r sW ...1111 VIII Sa W �Illll�ry" Figure 16-Loop in SW Quad+Slip Ramp Loop in SW Quad + Slip Ramp:This alternative allows northbound to westbound lefts to occur through an un-signalized slip-ramp.However,this requires northbound to westbound drivers to wait for an acceptable gap to make their left turns (across two southbound lanes) onto Hwy 36. Moreover,this geometry requires stacked left turn lanes (one for the slip ramp and on for the NW Frontage Road)which could be confusing to drivers.This condition also reduces the available storage and deceleration length needed for the NB left tum lane to the NW Frontage Road.This concept was dismissed by the PMT based on these factors. Highway 36 and Manning Avenue 26 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 31 of 47 Y PROMAGE RD APPROACH r , c . Honhweu T+onrgrAwd [onreu,:,.iruu•a; .II Interchange Operations NB to WB Operations j ll aw n1si li:��.1 i Ow of+lit dlFfdIM Iravel IVIAW1 (Wf7 L'-,� W ._. ,`fi.- Hwy 36 Operations WB Hwy 36 Merge 4! S RM?R 4dO mxr0VA*,o+t Hwy 36 Stand"d4a'nnF't'» Staoditd,Rampmerse Turning Movements Potential Conflicts ,U-turn conflict w/EB right,, • -�Wait for glspin make NB m- .',Wait for gap from NW Fronta8e^ st I$"140"09W v WBtur -to Hwy 16 _E Road toWtA_111:111MV Ramp Terminal Spacing Distance in feet 930 feet 93.feet 93o feet Byo feet Driver Expectation Intuitive configuration? ESB c9rtvees m-rayr eviastwkewiy, dku ven t,�y ffisasleeu9*: c ,Team ca to NW Pron¢3.ge Roo, Unum onto WS Hy 361r nif•,9_ �/Econtage R.oadl� ;n.' '(de>rdDe for WB ldd>r 36 (dwts ne G0r 1,TY frn¢nlage ummy eaanffl.se W.I.; �eMMEi fA@�'r:W.ie•.2� fF2tQ L�.�C� u �''e�-u�bit'yS�s.`+rst „'�rn:'4:4ir. — rra9ic Ranking *4 43 X= ri bSi .�rl l:.[I'rle[ (•tvs � I+-/ �� P--r ?41%r Ramp Esaw:,NE1,,)p.AcH..Lanr. K",-W.otBridge Basr+;Walf„ ROSa' ROW Nccds 0 0 4 .I`11!1. M,r Ime L�ILI- Sa me as 14 aj� eldde0orial ROW in NW Qua Cost/ROW Ranking kr #3 lis S4 15i®A La FLwrrde `� Modantdy Fa—fil. MoetF..ale O (3 Table 6.SW Loop Sub4Utemethe Comprlwn Metrix Fiigbmap 36 and MaoviogAvmve Ta SAF Caas i igq C—' T,L- 33 of 47 Study Recommendations and Next Steps Recommendations The goal of the interchange study was to develop conceptual alternatives aimed at improving safety and mobility at the present at-grade,signalized,intersection of Highway 36 and Manning Avenue. With guidance from the PMT,and input/advice from the LAT,several alternatives were identified and evaluated that could be considered at this location.Through analysis and discussions with the agencies and stakeholders involved,the process yielded the best alternative to be carried into the next phase of the project;the"Loop in SW Quad+Loop in NE Quad".This sub-alternative to the original"Loop in the SW Quad"best addresses the project goals and objectives. It offers safety and operational advantages over the base concept by converting the northbound to westbound lefts into rights through the addition of the NE Loop. However,the NE Loop also adds additional project costs/impacts and requires more robust improvements to WB Hwy 36 to accommodate a double merge condition.This option would be more intuitive to drivers on Manning Avenue and allow for a longer NB left turn lane with adequate deceleration length to access the NW Frontage Road. Overall,this option offers the best continuity of the existing frontage road system and assures continued functionality with planned developments and future frontage road connections. Schedule and Next Steps The next step is to move the project into the Preliminary Design/NEPA process which will require further analysis and refinement of the Loop in SW Quad+Loop in NE Quad and how it compares to the no-build condition.The public engagement process will continue with the goal of fully establishing the need for this project and gaining public acceptance of this alternative. The concept will likely impact powerlines/towers on the south side of Hwy 36 requiring on-going coordination with Xcel Energy. Upon the conclusion of the Preliminary Design/NEPA process,the project will enter the Final Design and Right-of-Wap phase,which will yield a set of biddable engineering plans and specifications.The goal is to commence construction of the new interchange by 2021.Figure 18 below shows the planned schedule for the duration of the project. Figure 18-Highway 36 and Manning Ave Project Schedule 2017 _ f __ 2018 2018 2020 2021 DESIGN R D RIGHT OF i F Highway 36 and Manning Avenue 29 SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 34 of 47 C 00111 qXz x I s 1 M sl n °. t -- " mei . Y r a` ,m • r I x I I g 41 011 l8e11: �, jir• �x v— ��n A n x of 47 , r City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 November 30, 2018 Ms. Molly O'Rourke,County Administrator * also Aa mail Molly.011ouft0co.washinaton.mmus Washington County PO BOX 6 Stillwater,MN 55082 RE: Manning&STH 36 Interchange Funding Dear Molly, Our City Staff has participated in some of the continuing discussions related to the Manning and STH 36 interchange project with County Staff and other local parties.This is part of the Local Advisory Team(LAT)process. I would offer that your staff has done a fine job of outlining the layout issues.What has been outlined from a layout standpoint would seem roughly plausible as all parties can comprehend the issues and the geometric complexities. Aside from the above, the discussion over the past months has not meaningfully engaged the funding elements. However,this past week,County Staff has expressed that the County WILL seek$5,000,00 in local cost contributions for this project and ONLY will petition the State Legislature for up to $10,000,000. With total project costs of $21,000,000-$25,000,000 being estimated at this time we are unclear of the funding capacities and where the funding is expected to be derived. As you likely appreciate,the local amounts as suggested by County Staff is not insignificant and fundamentally asks local governments to subsidize through its tax levies a regional project for STATE AND COUNTY infrastructure.Recall, the cities and townships surrounding this area are not specifically seeking this improvement; while all have been supportive of the LAT process the needed infrastructure that is to be constructed fundamentally benefits the STATE, the entire community and region.Therefore,a local cost contribution and in this magnitude is perplexing, ...and perhaps unrealistic. Further, the LAT has also been advised that Washington County will be seeking formal letters of support and/or potentially commitments of Municipal Consent for this project in the coming months.Naturally we have some questions needing answers in advance of any formal request for further project support and we are hoping you could help facilitate such inquiries: 1. As this is a REGIONAL project, benefits are not specific nor attributable to a local unit of government nor its population;we request that the County outline how this project justifies a local cost contribution that identifies specific benefits to each jurisdiction and how these benefits are distinct from those who are not requested to provide funding.We are asking to be provided well-defined and cogent differences that can demonstrate clear rationale for significant local funding versus those the County would not seek funding from. In other words, how would a "local" city resident specifically benefit more than a resident who resides in an immediately adjacent township that would not be asked to contribute? 2. Commentary related to Economic Development matters is briefly noted in the report,yet what the report lacks is a definition of what'economic development"actually is.As we understand ED, it is a positive,clear, NET fiscal expansion of a local tax base and/or a fundamental, clearly defined creation of employment at a living wage for our community. Neither of these are being clearly defined nor are practically foreseeable and is not 36 of 47 a basis for local subsidy without a more defined study.We would ask that this section be edited further. We would also ask that the Director of Economic Development for the Washington County Community Development Authority be engaged so that their staff may review and possibly comment on the complexities and realities of these quadrants and that such comments be included in the study. I am unsure if they have been engaged to date, but it does not appear to be the case. 3. There are times of considerable back-ups along STH 36 and that is exacerbated if not caused by the signalizations along such route.We would like to be provided a clear analysis that if Manning is altered to an interchange,what will be anticipated the down-stream (eastbound) impacts. If the"back-up"is simply going to be shifted eastwardly into our commercial areas,then this can give us some pause without a plan of action to address this.So,we would ask the County to provide some analysis to this question at this time. 4. How has the currently suggested $5,000,000 "local costs" amount been determined? And, what are the proposed allocations to each proposed local unit and how will that be determined? These are seminal questions in need of some clear responses. Please note.,this project area is not located within Oak Park Heights borders and to date the City has not been approached with a meritorious plan for annexation,nor any realistic plan for development that may also seek such annexation. 5. Why would the County not seek a complete funding package from the State Legislature for this project as tt fundamentally addresses a STATE Trunk Highway issue? 6. The funding parameters as they - have been explained to date 2019 LegislMive Funding Request: $10,000,000 outlined here > la e a MET COUNCIL—Federal Sok bfim: $7,000,000 ( ) has a r9 9 P Uret1FVm6m $5,000;Oi1Q=3800aY1DQ and does NOT include dollars Teat Project Costs. $21,000,000 th$25,000,000 from the Washington County LEVY. Instead,it seeks a large local subsidy for infrastructure that is wholly REGIONAL in nature. It has been expressed on several occasions throughout the LAT process that it is the County's desire to create a County Highway of some form, linking Manning Ave.to County Hwy 14 and this Project would assist that goal.Accordingly,the allocation of County Levy funds is the equitable methodology for a Regional project of this type where the primary beneficiaries are the State and the County entities. If other State or Federal funds cannot be acquired, if it could be explained from the County's perspective how the allocation of County Levy dollars is not appropriate compared to local requests? If the County will be requesting a position of support for the project—without a local financial contribution request—I would believe that our City would give prompt consideration to that and has provided that in the past for other grant applications. However,if there is a funding element tied to such request then such support will likely be presented with some complexities. These are vital questions that we seek answers to and in advance of a formal request for further support that may come in 2019 or beyond. I believe that the adjacent cities of Grant,Stillwater, Lake Elmo and Town of Stillwater would have similar financial concerns,their own collateral land use questions and similar questions might be raised by them as well. We appreciate your assistance to help better understand such complex matters and look forward to finding out more. Sincerely, 401�1— Eric Johnson City Administrator 37 of 47 City of Oak Park Heights Page 1 of 1 1 168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 November 1912018 Senator Karin Housley, Minnesota Senate-District 39 95 University Avenue W. Minnesota Senate Blda.,Room 3217 St.Paul,MN 55155 Representative Elect Michelle(Shelly)Christensen Minnesota District 39 B State Office Building St.Paul,MN 55155 (Also sent to:302 3nd Street N.Stillwater,MN,55082) Dear Senator Housley and Representative-Elect Christensen: The City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights is requesting to set up a meeting with each of you, or perhaps both of you concurrently,so we could bring you up to speed on critical issues that are evolving in our community. We would believe that these are topics that would be of interest to you as these directly impact local commerce,traffic safety and property tax shifts. Specifically: 0 The City is working diligently to find methods of relief for the growing congestion along STH 36 and especially at its intersection at Norell Ave. (formerly where the Eagle's site was). We would like to share information, show proposed layout plans to address the situation and discuss our funding commitments and shortfalls. • The City is also continually challenged with matters related to Xcel Energy and we would like to share with our concerns with you related to recent items being: Valuation reductions of the Xcel Energy Allan S.King Plant as approved by the State which then shifts tax burden to homeowners. And,how we move into the planning phases for the Plant's closure and our transition out of being a"host community". We do understand that you are very busy preparing for the upcoming Legislative Session and so the Council is prepared to meet on dates/times that may be most advantageous to your respective calendars so that we may fully inform you of these matters. Please contact our City Administrator, Eric Johnson at 651-439- 4439 or eajohnson@cftyofogkparkheights.com with a date and time that will work in your schedules. In the interim,please let me know if you have any questions on these(or other topics)and we will respond promptly. We look forward to working with you. Regard , Mc in Mayor 38 of 47 f 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 August 31,2018 TO: Shawn Sanders,Director of Public Works ***Sent Via email only:ssandersAci.stiliwater.mn.us*** City of Stillwater RE: City of Oak Park Heights-concrete aprons in the ROW Area Dear Shawn: dd L In 2016 we performed a joint-project THROUGH the City of Stillwater for the (I I replacement of road,curb and gutter along Ozark Ave and 64th Street.To the best of my = - - -- recollection,Miller Exc.was the primary contractor with Curb Masters being the concrete can ST. HURcd Y i t p firm. eeso y i At this time there is a location that is in need of replacement of three panels and a o3se f -- revisiting of the curb line drainage. This site is located at 14929 65th Street N (the driveway is on the Ozark side).The panels between the curb and the driveway is cracking and water sits in the curbline. Gu We are unsure if warranties have expired,but please use this letter as a claim notification. We are hoping you could contact the responsible company to provide a commitment repair these panels in summer 2019,as a 2-year lifespan is not acceptable.These cracks will continue to expand of course. We would be happy to meet with you on these sites if you have any questions or discuss this.If you could give me a call it would be appreciated.651-439-4439. Kindel Regards (/"— Eric Johnson City Administrator Cc: Vince and Myrna Jirik 14929 65th Street N. Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 39 of 47 Office of Governor-Elect Tim Walz 321 State Capitol,75 Rev Dr.Martin Luther KingJr. Blvd. MimHeSOTA Saint Paul,MN 55155 November 21, 2018 Dear Mayors: Thank you for the work you do to improve the lives of Minnesotans in cities across the state.I have been grateful for the opportunity to work with mayors and local leaders in southern Minnesota as a member of Congress, and throughout the state as I campaigned over the last two years. I believe that the connections and relationships you as Mayors forge with your communities are critical and that our state government must be committed to,connecting with and elevating your local work and priorities. As I embark in this new role as the Governor of the state of Minnesota, it is important to me that my Administration reaches out to local governments and works in partnership with you. That starts with me and the initial hiring j do to build my cabinet. I I am writing to you to share my transition website (mn.gov/tim-walz) as well as invite you to connect with my team working to recruit leadership for my Administration. I am hopeful that you might be willing to connect with this team—to share your feedback on community issues, leadership attributes you want to see in state government, and to nominate any leaders you see making change in your towns and cities. You may contact the team via phone (651-539-3150), fax(651-296-1755) or email (Gov.Elect@state.mn.us). Thank you for your time. I look forward to working together with you over the next four years.I am grateful for all you do in public service to advance the lives of Minnesotans and improve our state. In partnership, Tim Tim Walz Governor-Elect State of Minnesota Voice:651-539-3150 FAX:651-296-1755 TTY:800-627-3529 An Equal 0 pportunity Employer 40 of 47 Eric Johnson From: Mary Mccomber <marymccomber@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, November 24,2018 8:50 AM To: Eric Johnson Subject: Fwd: 5 Things Cities Can Be Grateful for This Thanksgiving For weekly notes -----Original Message----- From: National League of Cities<news@nlc.org> To: marymccomber<marymccomber@aol.com> Sent: Sat, Nov 24, 2018 6:11 am Subject: 5 Things Cities Can Be Grateful for This Thanksgiving View in browser NLCNATIONAL LEAGUE , OFCITIES The Vveczal_ • f�1F _xc. .. ¢ d v 5 Things Cities Can Be Grateful for This Thanksgiving 41 of 47 "Local leaders don't have a choice but to work together. We don't have time to hide or to get caught up in partisanship and division. We have to lead our communities, and for that, I am thankful." - Clarence Anthony, CEO & Executive Director of the National League of Cities :,rte How One City Uses a Trust to Control Pension Costs In Walnut Creek, California, as in a lot of cities around y: the nation, revenues are flattening, while expenses for 4 employee benefits and basic services are rising. Not to "W mention, as our cities continue to age, infrastructure -�---- needs are ever present. _ What Really Makes Cities Smart: Understanding the Citizen Experience While customers can move to alternative brands that best serve their needs and values, they only have one option when it comes to public services: the city government where they live. w Why the Census is Headed to SCOTUS _. In March 2018 Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross issued a memorandum stating a citizenship question would be added to the 2020 census questionnaire. In In Re Department of Commence the Supreme Court will not be deciding whether this question may be legally added. News Nirenburg Appointed to New National Housing Task Force Rivard Report — November 20, 2018 i 42 of 47 Cities that didn't win HQ2 shouldn't be counted out TechCrunch — November 18, 2018 NLC to invest to $100 Million in entrepreneurship, innovation economy Smart Cities Dive — November 13, 2018 Announcements Applications Now Open: Economic Development Program NLC's First Tier Suburbs Council is pleased to offer one first tier suburb, or a regional group of cities, the opportunity to partner with a national economic development and workforce consulting firm to hold an economic development summit in their community. Learn more here! Does Your City's Data Work Measure Up? Cities across the country are improving the lives of their residents by participating in What Works Cities Certification, the first-ever standard of excellence for well-managed, data-driven local government. By participating in the program, you'll learn how your city's data work measures up to the best practices in the field, and you'll get exclusive, pro bono support from the experts at Bloomberg Philanthropies' What Works Cities initiative to help you improve. Get started today! Applications Open for Leadership in Resiliency Program The Sustainable Cities Institute (SCI) at the National League of Cities is accepting statements of interest from cities to participate in the 2019 Leadership in Community Resilience program. Leadership in Community Resilience supports city-led projects by focusing on implementation, peer- learning and information sharing, and each city receives a $10,000 grant. Apply by January 4. Learn more here. Events March 10 - 13 Congressional City Conference (Washington, D.C.) 3 43 of 47 Job Postings Public Works Director— Umatilla, Oregon City Administrator— Fairburn, Georgia Chief Information Officer— Charlotte, North Carolina N I Id, am.. Kam*! _V a IM You may opt out of email communications from NLC at any time. Update your communication preferences. This message was intended for: marymccomber@aol.com 660 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 450 Washington, DC 20001 Privacy Policy ©2018 NLC, All Rights Reserved Powered by Higher Logic 4 44 of 47 Metro Cities News 11/21/18 Page 1 of 3 CMETRO TIES Member Login III _ etmpolen MtnldperUes Home Metro Cities News About Us Meetings&Events Membership Advocacy Policies&Resources MAMA Return to the dog Upcoming Events Metro Cities News 11/21/18 by:Kimberly Ciarrocchi I Tue Dec 11.2018 category:Newsletter Livable Communities Act(LCA) Workshop Show Tags Category:Metm Cities F—WWorkdpp Wed Dec12.201B Nov I JAAMA Holiday Social 21 In This Issue: Eeggary:MAMA View Full Calendar • Metropolitan Council and State Agency Appointments Prxess • Metrocolitan Council Approves Construction Contract for SWLRT • Announcements EVENT:Census Planning Roundtable EVENT:Metro Cities'Livable Communities Workshop-December 11 Metro Cities'2019 Draft EVENT:Metro Regional Meeting(Metro Cities Policy Adaption Meeting Legislative Policies will go before Metropolitan Council May Use Additional 5900.000 in General Lew to Su000rt Housina, the full membership in November. CDC Approves 2018 Livable Communities Account Funding Recommendations Click for information on the Local Government Innovation Awards Metro Regional Meeting/Policy Adoption Meeting and how to register.Click_to view the Metropolitan Council and State Agency Appointments Process 2019 Draft Legislative Policies. Following the November 6th election,Governor-elect Walz and a transition team have begun the process for appointing the Governor's cabinet and administration.The Governor's appointments will Metro cities is hiring for a Government Relations Intern for include appointment of a new Metropolitan Council Chair and Metropolitan Council members.Governor- the 2019 Legislative session. elect Walz has indicated that any current appointees must re-apply to be considered for appointment. Click' for more information. The Metropolitan Council will transition with a new Chair and appointment of new members,which could include reappointment of some current members.Traditionally,a Governor appoints a new Chair Our Tweets and Regional Administrator early in a new administration.The appointment of Council members will follow a statutory nominating committee process.Current members of the Council,meanwhile, Tweets by continue to serve until new appointments to the Council are made.All appointments must be made by @MetroCMesMN March 4,2019. Metro cities Applications for commissioner positions as well as the Chair and members of the Metropolitan Council @MetraoitiesMN can be submitted online through the Secretary of State's office. Bryan Hartman,Bloomington, presents Metro Cities housing Metro Cities has been asked to pass this information along to its members and encourages members and scan dev policies. _ to pass this information along to individuals who may have an interest in the Metropolitan Council or administration. Please contact Patricia Nauman at 651-215-4002 or iatriciatzmetrocitiefi_ with any questions. - Metropolitan Council Approves Construction Contract for SWLRT fah The Metropolitan Council last week approved a$799 million contract to Lunda/CS McCrossan Joint Metro cities Venture for construction on the Southwest Light Rail Transit(SWLRT)Project.The action comes after QMetroCitiesMN the Federal Transit Administration(FTA)submitted a letter of no prejudice to the Council for the project. Susan Amtz,Waoorda city Adm., presents Met Agencies policies. The Council also approved several other items related to the SWLRT,including a quality management services contract for an amount of$36 million and agreements with MnDOT,Hennepin County, Embed View on Twitter Minneapolis and Eden Prairie.A limited notice to proceed will now be issued.Council staff indicated 45 of 47 hos://www.metrocitiesmn.org/index.php?option=cont dailyplanetblog&view=entry&ye... 11/30/2018 Metro Cities News 11/21/18 Page 2 of 3 that construction will likely commence in the first quarter of 2019,with a ceremonial ground breaking taking place in December of this year.For more information,click'. EVENT:Census Planning Roundtable Friday,December 7,2018 1:00-2:30 pm Ramsey County Library-Rase vi/le 2180 Hamline Avenue North Roseville,MN 55113 Registration This is a meeting of local governments working together to promote awareness and participation in the 2020 Census.This group includes local government professionals and officials who are organizing and supporting such committees. Community engagement specialists,voter-registration promotion specialists,and Interested elected officials are encouraged to attend.Show up early(12:15-12:30)for lunch and informal networking. EVENT:Metro Cities'Livable Communities Workshop—December 11 Metro Cities is hosting a workshop for city officials and staff to hear from Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act Program staff on tips,tools and other information for submitting competitive LCA applications, Tuesday,December 11,2018 9:00-11:30 am LMC/Metro Cities Building-SYt Croix Room,145 UniversityAve The workshop will cover the following: A review of LCA goals Examples of successful and unfunded applications Eligibility and competitiveness for a range of cities A review of timelines and scoring process for applications Questions from attendees The workshop is open to interested city officials and staff.Seating is limited.Please register by Friday, December 7th to or 651-215-4000. EVENT:Metro Regional Meeting/Metro Cities Policy Adoption Meeting There's still time to register for the LMC Metro Regional Meeting and Policy Adoption Meeting on November 291h,2018 at Brookv!ew in Golden Valley! The cities of Minnetonka,Eagan,and Prior Lake will discuss their strategies for community engagement.LMC and LMCIT staff will present on conflict in local government and how to work together for more effective governing and problem-solving.Metro Cities membership will also meet to approve the 2019 Legislative Policies for Metro Cities staff to use going into the 2019 legislative session.A membership quorum Is required for policy adoption,so each member city should make sure to send a representative!The event will end with a great networking social hour. Click for more information and to register.We look forward to seeing you there! Metropolitan Council May Use Additional$900,000 in General Levy to Support Housing Vouchers Responding to increased rents across the metro region,the Community Development Committee(CDC) recommended usina an additional 9900of 2019 general levy funds to maintain and pay for the current level of housing choice vouchers in 2019.The draft 2019 Council budget,out for public comment,already includes$1.1 million in general levy subsidy for rent assistance.If approved by the 46 of 47 https://www.metrocitiesmn.org/index.php?option=com dailyplanetblog&view—entry&ye... 11/30/2018 Metro Cities News 11/21/18 Page 3 of 3 full Council,the 2019 budget would have a total subsidy of$2 million. ier options considered by the Council included reducing the number of vouchers by 100 or reducing the community choice initiative by$1 million. Under current HUD rules the Met Council can issue up to 6,616 vouchers.The 2018 budget used$1.9 million of Met Council housing reserves to Issue all available vouchers this year.The Council discussed a desire to set rent limits high enough to allow choice in all communities while setting them low enough to serve as many families as possible. The community choice initiative responds to what the Council has identified as higher payment standards in thirteen high rent communities(Chanhassen,Chaska,Eden Prairie,Edina,Excelsior,Golden Valley,Hopkins,Maple Grove,Minnetonka,Roseville,Shoreview,St.Anthony and White Bear Lake). Discussion bythe committee included comments noting this proposal would use the region-wide levy to support the subregional geographic footprint of the Metro HRA.The ME—4RA's service area includes nearly 100 communities in Carver,Hennepin,Anoka and Ramsey counties, The full Met Council will review and vote on the revised budget proposal later this month. Contact Charlie Vander Aarde at 651-215-4001 orr-harlle metrocitiesmn.ou with any questions. CDC Approves 2018 Livable Communities Demonstration Account Funding Recommendations The CDC approved nine projects in six cities for Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding this week.The projects support a range of improvements and end uses including housing,workforce development,public infrastructure,stormwater management,placemaking,and tax capacity increases, Nine of 10 applications were approved.Projects are in Brooklyn Park,St,Louis Park,Eden Prairie, Richfield,Minneapolis and St.Paul. The committee waived the 40/60 guideline in order to more fully fund requests for projects in Minneapolis and St.Paul.The award guideline states the Council may issue up to 40%of available funds to projects located in Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Local Government Innovation Awards The Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota recently named 19 winners of Local Government Innovation Awards.Projects are recognized in up to five categories(cities,counties, schools,townships,and Native nations)and one entry in each category is named Leading Innovator. Award winners from the City category were the Ramsey County Fire Chiefs Association(Leading Innovator),the city of Big Lake,the city of Minneapolis,the city of Richfield,and the Rochester Public Library.To see more information on each category and projects awarded within each category,click here. An awards ceremony will be held on Thursday,December 13th at 5:00 pm at the Cowles Auditorium at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs.Click for more information and to RSVP. Share this post: Metro Cities(Association of Metropolitan Municipalities) 145 University Ave W,Suite 125 St.Paul,MN 55103 651-215.4000 acsktotop/► Powered by Q Mellel[lilda 47 of 47 https://www.metrocitiesmn.org/index.php?option�om dailyplanetblog&view—entry8cye... 11/30/2018