Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-24-2023 Worksession Packet City of Oak Park Heights Worksession Date:Tuesday, January 24, 2023 Time: 5:00pm 1.Call to Order 2.Receive Update from City Lobbyist 2023 Legislative Session Lockridge Grindal 3.County South Frontage Road Staff Requesting Feedback on Certain Elements 4.Adjournment Page 1 of 6 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 2 of 6 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Phone (651) 439-4439 Fax (651) 439-0574 th January 20, 2023 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Eric Johnson, City Administrator RE: Update County Frontage Road Discussion – Some input needed. Staff is in need of some further direction and a check-in as it continues to discuss the South Frontage Road matter with Washington County Administration. We are not suggesting that any final approvals are appropriate at this time. Staff expresses this memo from the 2020 perspective that the Project itself remains conceptually possible to the City with certain elements of an MOU (or other Agreements) being met. OUND PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING BACKGR In July 2020, the City offered the MOU to Washington County to address key issues with the County SFR and to enable the County’s application to a MET COUNCIL grant program. ( I will not get into the preceding actions to this). Ultimately there was not a response or substantive follow-up. This initial MOU is enclosed as TAB 1. Beyond some interesting sparring, there was little dialogue between the City and County relative to this matter for quite some time. Then….in mid-late 2022, the County appeared to desire to re-engage directly including discussions on the concepts of the 2020 MOU. Since that time, I have had some extensive discussions with County Staff about this MOU and its elements. While we have not found agreement on each initial City position of the 2020 MOU, there appears to be fundamental position acknowledged by County Staff that the City shall bear no costs associated with the County’s project including Utilities, STM Water, sidewalks, and other directly impacted elements. This was a key factor in the MOU and was/is not a negotiable matter for the City. TAB 2 contains elements of the general discussion / working draft where there appears to be some tentative staff agreement to date. Nothing is final as both parties have expressed that it is only Staff discussions to date – not more. There is NOT A TIMELINE that City Staff is aware of that it is specifically working towards. SPECIFIC DIRECTION NEEDED AT THIS TIME – FOUR ITEMS / QUESTIONS: Considering the foregoing…Staff have come to a juncture in the process where some further guidance is necessary on four elements before we can or (should) continue some discussions: Page 3 of 6 Question 1. The City’s 2020 MOU action on this isapproaching three years-old and stemmed from a County urgent need at that timewhere the City attempted to provide an option. Is Council’s position of the Project occurring in the City still acceptable under those MOU directives? th Street from STW Blvd to Oakgreen. Question 2.The initial MOU outlines a requirement the County to take 58 To date, I have set this issue aside from my discussions with the County for the time being as it would seem unnecessary to discuss if other funding parameters were not met, but this seems to be resolved – and thus STAFF needs some feedback on this….is this still a need of the City Council as a pre-requisite? Staff does understand that the County would not want to take this over as they would havesome complexities with linking CSAH – point to point and what may be permitted under that CSAH definition. However, this would be the County’s issue to resolve or seek varianceof some formor link to STH 36 via Oakgreen Ave. If this remains a prerequisite, Staff will inform the County of this and they will need to think more about this. Question 3. Staff did offer a maximum $100,000 possible position for the REGIONAL TRAILS as would be an expansion with some benefit to the overall network. The City would have no maintenance or replacement responsibilities. Is the Council comfortable with this commitment? City Park and Trail Dedication funds could be utilized. Question 4. The issue of Memorial Ave… needs some guidance. The STANTEC analysisdemonstrates that the expected level of service both eastbound and westbound is generally POOR at Memorial Ave and STW BLVD – in the Build (FIG 1) and NO Build Scenario (Fig 2). The Build does not fundamentally improve the overall operation. However, this BUILD likely will generate additional traffic compared to a NO-BUILD and could transform this small commercial area into a denser more active corridor. So a concern is…would that traffic seek th street (or in the opposite direction)? These full studies to shortcut this intersection via MEMORIAL AVE to 55 are in TABS 3 & 4. With the BUILD scenario, the eastbound movement that would be the impacting rationale for theact of cut- through gets worse compared to the NO BUILD. And what is not improved at all is for STW BLVD northbound traffic that will not wait at the Left (westbound) turn cue that likely would be short. These may result in the very th likely possibility that drivers will seek alternative route – being the shortcutting to/from Memorial Ave and 55 Street. What does the Council think about this possibility? More evaluation or study? Neighborhood meeting?Or th simply, would the City opt to require the County take Memorial Ave & 55Street over? Or…perhaps suggest they proposefor Council approval and commit to improvements that would limit the cut-through th streetshould it become a future issue? but also allow equitable access to 58 NO BUILD -FIGURE 2 BUILD -FIGURE 1 Page 4 of 6 NOTE:The County does not immediately agree with this cut-through possibility – citing it does not happen in other areas – such as in Woodbury (see below), and comments that its project (Figure 1) improves the intersection collectively compared with a NO BUILD (Figure 2). Obviously, this “improvement” is not directlyto the specific cut-through issue and in total any “improvement” is quite marginal at bestyetwith a rotation of LOS F from northbound to eastbound; AND continues to encourage drivers to use STH 36 – (as westbound remains LOS F) or the possible cut-through. That stated, the County has not responded FIGURE 3 –without FRONTAGE ROAD to the City’s secondary data set provided to them in July 2021 that outlines th improvements to STW BLVD at 58 street– see Figure 3 as an alternative set of benefits to this area versus the SFR concept. Some County comments on two items: Page 5 of 6 NOTES FOR AWARENESS: Other things to note that are also being discussed, but further guidance is not necessary at this time, but may in the near future if this MOU matter proceeds: NOTE 1. Washington County – regardless of funding – is required to secure Municipal Consent for CSAH. If this MOU proceeds, it would include provisions and terms of Municipal Consent that cannot then be unreasonably conditioned, withheld or delayed by the City. This will provide some reasonable assurances to the County that the City will provide its consent at the end of any final discussion or public process – so long as such project is consistent with the term and conceptual layouts. NOTE 2.It is very important to recall that the City is not seeking permissions or needs any approvals from the County relative to their Project, it is the County that needs City Municipal Consent as well as City support (or at least acquiescence) for possible grant or bond funding. The MOU seeks to require the City to offer some reasonable letters of support and withdraw a 2020 objection. So long as the end project is consistent with the concept layouts and MOU commitments are solid, this would seem reasonable the County would ask this. th NOTE 3. The County will seek to make improvements to the City’s NEAL and 58 street Signalization so that the timing and be tied and correlated to the STW BLD signals. They accept and acknowledge that these would all be County costs, but would seek to have the City assume certain maintenance responsibilities for these new systemsat Neal Ave. This seems reasonable at this time, but we do not yet know what these may exactly include and/or if that includes replacement of what could be expensive systems – versus re- lamping, electric costs or other “lighter” maintenance obligations – we are awaiting some information. NOTE 4. Realizing that this this Project may take some time to secure funding... however no project should hold City commitments or approvals in perpetuity with unknown dates. Staff will be seeking to require that the MOU / Agreements have specific timelines for City support discussed above – example: - five years – which at that time unless the Project is funded or reasonably imminent all written commitments are to be exhausted. This five year timeline is THREE YEARS past the dates the County has on their CIP – giving them adequate time to secure funds and/or fund it with their own resources should they feel it is a priority. NOTE 5.All commitments must be BINDING AND ENFORCEABLE on both parties – that said…The tool of an MOU to date has been used to outline commitments and expectations as the entities move through all the elements of future or necessary agreements. If there is not an MOU per se and can be simply shifted to a Jurisdictional Transfer Agreement – this may save other steps. Staff will continue to pursue this Agreement generically and will see what the best tool is to accomplish this given the Council’s expectations. The City has never parsed out commitments – everyone needs to be bound to all their commitments. NOTE 6. Should this MOU all go south and the County still desires to implement is project without City consent, the Municipal Consent statute MN STAT. 162.02 Subd. 8a.does have a provision to appeal a city decision of rejecting Municipal Consent. Such appeal effort would be immense, damaging to the County’s ability to secure other funding and likely time consuming. And still… would not result in the City being compelled to fund anything. Presumably, the County would FIRST need to make a formal ask for Municipal Consent before it can even begin to seek such relief and that process in of itself would likely require significant effort in design , study, and land acquisition before that ask could be made. Staff has not done deep research into these elements, but these seem to be the initial set of rules to realize.TAB 5. contains such statute. Page 6 of 6