Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-09-2023 Worksession Packet
City of Oak ParkHeights Worksession Date:Tuesday, May 9, 2023 Time:5:00 pm* *This Worksession will begin at 5:00 p.m., and will be recessed6:00 p.m. for the City Council meeting. The Worksession willreconvenefollowing adjournment of the City Council meeting. Call to Order Discuss/Update City Administrator Hiring Process Codeof Conduct Lobbying Policy th Washington County 58StreetExtension Adjournment Page 1 of 50 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Phone (651) 439-4439 Fax (651) 439-0574 May 5th, 2023 MEMO TO:Mayor and City Council Members FROM:Eric Johnson, City Administrator RE:Worksession topics for agenda The Worksession planned for 5/9/23-5 pm-and Staff is aware that the following isslated: 1.Discuss / Update City Administrator Hiring Process 2.and documentation for discussion and review.Recall, this was handed out in March and any final edits are requested pending possible final action at some future Council date? Attached is that documentfor your referenceNOW INCLUDING REDLINES/EDITS received since that last discussion. 3.Council Member Johnson supplied a draft policy related to Lobbying Policy and requested feedback at this meeting. That document is attached againfor your reference. 4.Possibly Adjourn Worksession to Following 6 PM CITY COUNCIL MEETING. th 5.Washington County -58Street Extension CTY HWY 15 as requested by Council Member Runk NOTE This is expected to be held AFTER the City Council meeting) See Staff memo Dated 5-5-23 is enclosedfor related elements. Page 2 of 50 Page 3 of 50 May 4, 2022 Ms. MaryMcComber Mayor City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Dear Mayor McComber, Thank you for the opportunity to provide a proposal to assist the City of Oak Park Heightswith the recruitment of its nextCity Administrator. GMP consultants have collectively worked on over 500 executive searches including 150 city/county management recruitments and has a reputation for providing superior service and building lasting relationships with both clients and candidates. We believe our proven process provides a best practices approach to attracting high quality candidates and ensuring a good fit for your organization. Additionally, yourlead consultant will beMr.Matt Fulton. Matt brings over 30years of Minnesotacity management experience and is active inthe MinnesotaCity Managers Association and the International City Managers Association resulting in exceptionalcity managementcontacts! If you have any questions or would like to discuss your specific needs, please do not hesitate to contact me at (206)714-9499 or Greg@gmphr.com. I look forward to hearing from you and hope to have the opportunity to work together soon. Sincerely, Greg M. Prothman President, GMP Consultants LLC ____________________________________________________ Page 4 of 50 206 714 9499 •7041 Cascade Ave SE Snoqualmie, WA 98065 •greg@gmphr.com City Administrator Search Proposal TABLE OF CONTENTS ABOUT GMP CONSULTANTS............................................................................................................................................ 2 PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS............................................................................................................................................... 3 WORKPLAN & APPROACH................................................................................................................................................ 4 PROFESSIONAL REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................ 6 PROFESSIONAL FEE.......................................................................................................................................................... 6 GUARANTEE &WARRANTY.............................................................................................................................................. 6 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAO SEARCHES BY GMP CONSULTANTS...................................................................................... 6 WORK SAMPLES: POSITION PROFILE AND INVITATION TO APPLY LETTER...................................................................... 9 Copyright © 2022 by GMP Consultants, LLC. All rights reserved. ABOUT GMP CONSULTANTS GMP Consultants is a public sector executive search firm with a collective 180 years of local government leadership experience with both regional and national relationships. GMP Consultants offer our clients experienced subject matter experts with a solid understanding oflocal government coupled with decades of experience. We have served in a wide range of executive positions, from cityandcounty management to public works, management information systems, and finance. Our Qualifications Founded and led by Greg M. Prothman, formerly the CEO of Prothman, GMP consultants have worked on over 500 executives searches including150 city/county managementsearches. All our senior search consultants are active in both ICMA and local state level city management associations or in their respective professional associations. Page 5 of 50 Page| 2 City Administrator Search Proposal Our Philosophy Our business philosophy centers on the understanding that this is a “people” related industry. We have a reputation for providing superior service and building lasting relationships with both clients and candidates. We believe that attention to others’ needs is the key to effective customer service. Why Choose GMP? What you get with GMP Consultants is personal service. You appreciate it when phone calls are returned, projects stay on schedule and your challenges are given thorough and creative thinking. While other companies may assign your business to lesser experienced staff, we offer exceptional service from senior- level consultants. Service & Relationship - Our consultants bring a reputation for providing outstanding service and building lasting relationships with both clients and candidates. Customized Solutions - We take the time to become familiar with your organization to ensure that we offer the best solution and not just a single service. People First - We work closely with you and your candidates through every stage of the recruitment process, creating a welcoming candidate experience and ensuring an effective recruitment outcome. Team Approach - Our entire consulting group works as a team to leverage their networks to assist with each assignment and give your challenges thorough and creative thinking. Washington City Management Experience - Our consultants are seasoned and successful Washington state city manager practitioners with long-term tenures and extensive experience in conducting national searches PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS Greg M. Prothman – Project Manager Greg offers a unique combination of 20+ years of experience in various functions of government and 25 years of experience in public sector recruitment. Prior to forming GMP Consulting, Greg founded and was the driving force at Prothman Company as its CEO. Prior he was a partner at Waldron & Company. Early in his career Greg served as a police officer for the University of Washington and the City of Renton. He left police work after completing his Masters degree in Public Administration and accepted an administrative position for the City of Des Moines, WA. He was quickly promoted to Assistant City Manager and then City Manager. A Seattle native, Greg completed his BA at Western Washington University and his Master of Public Administration (MPA) degree from the University of Washington. Additionally, he completed the Senior Executives in State and Local Government program at Harvard University. Greg is a volunteer member of Seattle Mountain Rescue and a member of Crystal Mountain Ski Patrol. Matt Fulton – Lead Project Consultant Matt brings over 30 years of local government leadership experience serving as a city manager in small (7,000 pop.) and large organizations (65,000 pop.) in Minnesota and Wisconsin. He has worked in suburban and free standing full service environments as well as in fully developed and fast growing communities. During his career, Matt has had the opportunity to provide leadership at the local, state, national, and Page 6 of 50 Page| 3 City Administrator Search Proposal International levels, including serving as a Regional Vice President on the ICMA Executive Board of Directors, a member on the Minnesota League of Cities Board of Directors, and as President of the Minnesota City/County Management Association. He is recognized as an innovative and proactive professional, with a focus on strengthening civic engagement and assessing organizational and community performance. Over the past four years, he has served as Polco’s VP for National Engagement, helping local governments build stronger engagement approaches and assessing performance, from the perspective of residents and community stakeholders. His continual engagement with community leaders across the country has helped him strengthen his already strong national network of talented local government professionals and organizational connections. Matt has a Master’s degree in Public Administration from the University of Wisconsin and an undergraduate degree in urban planning from the University of Minnesota. Sarah Marsh – Content Designer Sarah brings a background across nonprofit, business, government, and education sectors. She holds an M.B.A in Organizational Behavior & Development from the University of Vermont. She also publishes in the field of American History and is the author of two books honored by the National Council for the Social Studies. Kate Hansen – Recruitment Coordinator Kate is a certified Project Management Professional (PMP) with a background in business, nonprofit, and fire administration. She has served as a Public Records Officer as well as a political campaign manager, and brings a distinguishing blend of attention to detail, creativity, and critical thinking. Kate holds a B.A. in Theatre from Chapman University with an emphasis on stage management. WORKPLAN & APPROACH INFORMATION GATHERING & RECRUITMENT PROFILE DEVELOPMENT Review and Finalize Search Process and Schedule Wemeet with the City Councilto review projectneeds, process, schedule, and identify the scope of the recruiting market. Our goal is to thoroughly understand your organization, current challenges, timeline, and preferred qualifications for this recruitment. Develop, Review, and Approve a Detailed Recruitment Profile & Invitation We create a customrecruitment profile highlighting the strengths of your job opportunityas well as your unique needs. Examples of prior recruitment profiles are included in this proposal and typically feature: Why Apply? Challenges & Opportunities Community ProfileCompensation & Benefits The Organization, Department, & PositionResources The Ideal Candidate/ Education & ExperienceYour Social Media (if applicable) STRATEGIC MARKETING Targeted Recruitments - Having 20 plus years of designing and implementing national recruitments, GMP Consultants will create and conduct a nationwide recruitment and candidate generation process, employing recruitment strategies designed to encourage competitive applicants from diverse backgrounds and experiences. We have been successful in identifying a candidate pool that is racially, ethnically, and gender diverse. Page 7 of 50 Page| 4 City Administrator Search Proposal We willdevelop a national advertising strategy placing ads in websites, job boards, periodicals, and social media such as LinkedIn. ntl. City Managers Association (ICMA) IMinnesota City Managers Association League of MinnesotaCitiesWisconsin City Managers Association WisconsinLeague of Municipalities Iowa City Managers Association Iowa League of CitiesIllinois City Managers Association Illinois Municipal LeagueMichigan City Managers Association Michigan Municipal LeagueIndiana City Managers Association League of Nebraska MunicipalitiesCareers in Government Indiana Associations of Towns & CitiesGovernment Jobs Development of Candidate Database for Direct Mail Invitations - We will mail approximately 500to 700 letters of invitation to city managers/administrators in the mid western United States. CANDIDATE SCREENING AND SHORTLIST PRESENTATION Candidate Application Materials - Candidates are asked to submit a cover letter, application, resume, answers to supplemental questions (designed to measure writing and thinking skills) and professional references. Selection & Interview of Semifinalists - We review all candidate application materials and identify 8 to 12 of the most promising semifinalists. We conduct a one-hour interview with each semifinalist and provide written observations. Search Work Session – We meet with you to review semifinalists. Prior to the meeting wesend youeach applicant’s cover letter, resume, essay questions, the consultant semifinal interview notes, and candidate summary sheet. The City Councilselects the finalist candidates and design the final interviews. FINAL INTERVIEWS & SELECTION Design and Preparation of Final Interviews - Wehelp you decide on the structure and schedule of the interviews, including the panel participants and facilitators. We tailor the process to fit your needs and prepare all the candidate materials for the interviews. Reference & Background Checks - We conduct professional reference checks on each candidate, requesting the names of supervisors, subordinates, and peers. Background checks include Education Verification, Criminal History, Driving Record, and Sex Offender Check. Candidate Travel - We help you identify which candidate travel expenses your organization wishes to cover and then work with the candidates to coordinate the most cost-effective travel arrangements. Final Interviews & Selection - The City Council(and advisory panels if used) interview finalists. We facilitate a debrief with all panel participants. After the debrief, we facilitate the evaluationprocess, help the decision makers come to consensus, discuss next steps, and organize any additional candidate referencing or research. Candidate Appointment - Wefacilitate potential contract elements with the City Council. Once your top candidate has been selected, we will assist as needed with the job offer, contract negotiations, and employment agreement. Page 8 of 50 Page| 5 City Administrator Search Proposal PROFESSIONAL REFERENCES City of Blane, MN pop. 70,000 City of Belgrade, MT pop.11,075 Michelle Wolfe, City MangerNeil Cardwell, City Manager mwolfe@blainemn.govncardwell@cityofbelgrade.net 763 785 6121406-388-3760 Finance Director - in progressCity Manager Human Resource Director Gunnison County, CO pop. 17,000+Assistant City Manager - in progress Matthew Birnie, County Manager MBirnie@gunnisoncounty.org 970-641-3061 County Manager Chief Financial Officer Asst. County Manager PROFESSIONAL FEE The fee for conducting a City Administratorrecruitment is $16,500. The professional fee covers all consultant and staff time required to conduct the recruitment. Professional fees are billed in three equal installments: at the beginning, halfway, and upon completion of the final interviews. The City will be responsible for reimbursing expenses incurred on the City’s behalf. Expenses include: Websites, job boards and other advertising (approx. $1,600 - 1,900) Direct mail announcements (approx. $1,200 - 1,400) Consultant travel: Mileage at IRS rate and $65 per hour Background checks (approx. $170 per candidate) The City has the right to cancel the search at any time. The City’s only responsibility would be the fees and expenses incurred prior to cancellation. GUARANTEE & WARRANTY Should the selected candidate leave the employment of the City within the first 12 months of appointment, we will, conduct one additional recruitment for the cost of expenses only, if requested to do so within six months of the employee’s departure. If the major elements of the process are followed and a candidate is not chosen, we will repeat the recruitment once with no additional professional fee, the only cost to you would be the expenses. Page 9 of 50 Page| 6 City Administrator Search Proposal LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAOSEARCHES BY GMP CONSULTANTS Association of Washington Clatsop County, OR Franklin County, WA Cities (AWC) County Manager (2) County Administrator Chief Executive Officer City of Colorado Springs, CO City of Gillette, WY City of Arlington, WA Assistant City Manager City Administrator City Administrator City of Connell, WA City of Gladstone, OR City of Bainbridge Island, WA City Administrator(2) City Administrator City Administrator (2) City of Covington, WA Gunnison County, CO City of Battle Ground, WA City Manager (2)County Manager City Manager (2) Assistant County Manager (2) Deputy City Manager Cowlitz 911, WA Executive Director City of Hailey, ID City of Belgrade, MT City Administrator City Manager (2) City of Damascus, OR Assistant City Manager City Manager City of Hermiston, OR City Manager Blaine County, ID Deschutes County, OR County Administrator(2) County Administrator City of Hood River, OR City Manager City of Bothell, WA City of DuPont, WA Deputy City Manager City Administrator Hood River County, OR Assistant City Manager County Administrator City of Duvall, WA CAM-PLEX Multi-Event City Administrator Intercity Transit, WA Facilities (WY) General Manager General Manager Eagle County, CO County Manager Island County, WA City of Canby, OR County Administrator City Administrator East Multnomah Soil & Water Conservation District (OR) ICOM- 911, WA City of Carnation, WA Executive Director Executive Director City Manager (2) eCityGov Alliance (WA) Island Transit (WA) City of Casper, WY Executive Director Executive Director City Manager City of Edgewood, WA City of Issaquah, WA City of Chehalis, WA City Manager (2) City Administrator City Manager (2) Deputy City Administrator (2) City of Ellensburg, WA City of Chelan, WA City Manager Island County City Administrator (3) County Administrator City of Fife, WA Clackamas County, OR City Manager Jefferson County, WA County Administrator County Administrator City of Fircrest, WA City Manager (2) Page 10 of 50 Page| 7 City Administrator Search Proposal City of Kelso, WA City of McMinnville, OR City of Shoreline, WA City Manager City Manager City Manager Deputy City Manager City of Kenmore, WA City of Newcastle, WA City Manager (2) City Manager (2)SNOCOM 911, WA Executive Director City of Ketchum, ID City of Pasco, WA City Administrator City Manager Snohomish County, WA Deputy City ManagerExecutive Director City of Lacey, WA City Manager City of Post Falls, ID Snohomish County PUD (WA) City Administrator Assistant General Manager City of Lake Forest Park, WA City Administrator (3) City of Port Angeles South Sound 911 City Manager Executive Director City of Lake Oswego, OR City Manager City of Port Townsend City of Spokane Valley, WA City Manager City Manager City of Lake Stevens, WA Deputy City Manager (2) City Administrator City of Prosser, WA City Administrator (2) City of Stanwood, WA City of Lakewood, WA City Administrator City Manager City of Puyallup, WA Asst. City Manager City Manager (2) City of Stevenson, WA City Administrator Lane County, OR City of Ridgefield, WA County Administrator City Manager City of Sultan, WA City Administrator (2) City of Leavenworth, WA City of Riverton, WY City Administrator (2) City Administrator Summit County, UT County Manager City of Lebanon, OR City of Sammamish City Manager City Manager City of Sun Valley, ID City Administrator City of Lewiston, ID San Juan County, WA City Manager (2) County Manager City of Sunnyside, WA City Manager Lincoln City, OR City of Scappoose, OR City Manager City Manager City of Thorne Bay, AK City Administrator City of Longview, WA City of Seattle, WA Labor Standards Division City Manager Twin Transit (WA) Director General Manager Fire Chief County of Los Alamos, NM County Administrator City of Vancouver, WA City of Shelton, WA Assistant City Manager City Administrator (2) City of Louisville, CO Management Assistant City Manager City of Walla Walla, WA City Manager City of Lynden, WA City Administrator Page| 8 Page 11 of 50 City Administrator Search Proposal Washington Association of City of West Linn, OR City of Woodinville, WA County Officials City Manager City Manager (2) Executive Director (2) City of Whitefish, MT Woodinville Water District, WA Washington Counties Risk Pool City Manager General Manager Executive Director City of White Salmon, WA City of Woodland, WA Washington School Information City Administrator City Administrator Processing Cooperative - WSIPC City of Wood Village, OR City of Wrangell, AK Executive Director City Administrator Borough Manager Water & Sewer Risk City of Woodburn, OR City of Yakima, WA Management Pool (WA) City Administrator City Manager Executive Director Assistant City Manager WORK SAMPLES: POSITIONPROFILE AND INVITATION TO APPLY LETTER (Attached). Additional samples available at gmphr.com. Page| 9 Page 12 of 50 Page 13 of 50 Page 14 of 50 Page 15 of 50 Page 16 of 50 Page 17 of 50 Page 18 of 50 Page 19 of 50 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 20 of 50 Page 21 of 50 Page 22 of 50 Page 23 of 50 Page 24 of 50 Page 25 of 50 Page 26 of 50 Page 27 of 50 Page 28 of 50 Page 29 of 50 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 30 of 50 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS POLICY ON USE OF CITYLOBBYING ACTIVITIES Purpose: Lobbying is a critical tool cities use to secure funding or favorable policesfrom County, State or Federal Agencies. To achieve desired outcomes, the City does often hire professional lobbyists who can effectively coordinated such activities. Moreover, the City does regularly coordinate its preferred agenda with other entities, but to ensure City priorities remain paramount, the City Council does adopt these Policies. A.Lobbying Efforts - City Legislative Agenda Each year, the City may outlinea legislative agenda or legislative goals andto advance these, hired staff may be appointed by the Council to “lobby” legislative bodies during an individual legislative session or calendar year on a particular issue. Lobbyists are hired consultants similar to the City Attorney, Engineer and Planning Consultant. Having direct interface between local and state/federal officials – such as testifying at hearings can be an integral element of any lobbying effort. Therefore the City Council may also appoint a City Council member(s) to directly assist in any official lobbying effort for the City. Such appointment is limited in scope to that of a spokesperson fully representing the City’s position before legislative officials and/or committees however it is not elevated as the City’s lead point of contact with lobbyists or other elected officials. NOTE:For the purposes of this Policy, lobbying is defined as directly representing the City to a legislative body, this includes making statements in front of the County Board, State Legislature, and federal officials and which is expected to fully represent the City’s position(s). B.Lobbying for Items Outside of Legislative Agenda Independent of the City Council’sexpected legislative goals, if there is a topic an elected official seeks to lobby for and that would seek to enjoin the City’s support, the official must provide the Council in advance of the lobbying effort the following: a.Information on when, where, who, and how the individual will be lobbying; b.The City’s interest or possible conflictsin the lobbying effort; and c.The statement to be made or a summary of statements to affirm the City Council is in concurrence with planned policy/lobbying comments. C.Lobbying with Partner Agencies or Groups Entities where the City is a dues paying member such as the Coalition of Utility Cities, Middle St. Croix Watershed Organization, METRO CITIES, League of Minnesota Cities, etc. do also engage in lobbying efforts (before the State or Federal Governments) relative to the expressed interests of such organization. Page 31 of 50 Such entities may also request City persons to take-up that duty for event such as at a Legislative Hearing. If that is necessary and with reasonable notice provided for Council discussion, the City Council may permit the appointed elected official to that entity to perform such act. It is the duty of the elected official to ensure there is not a conflict between City positions or legislative goals and the Partner Agency. In the event there is an expected conflict or possible confusion , the elected official shall refrain from any direct lobbying for the Partner Agency. D.Sharing of Lobbying Duties So as to ensure there is a reasonable dissemination of any such responsibilities, no elected official should represent more than one lobbying effort (including City specific goals) in a given legislative year / cycle unless expressly approved by the City Council. E.Council Permission If an official is not appointed and/or does not get approval from the Council, the official must make clear that they are not representing the City and all comments shall be generally consistent with the balance of this policy. Page 32 of 50 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Phone (651) 439-4439 Fax (651) 439-0574 5/5/23 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM:Eric Johnson, City Administrator th RE: UPDATES / Questions on 58Street As requested by Council Member Runk, the City Council has scheduled workshop to discuss this matterand generally relate to the written exchanges between the City Council and response from the County.Those two documents are enclosed.However, there are some related points of information that Staff would like to update you and potentially seek direction: th 1)Staff has provideda MEMO – enclosed dated May 4that provides some analysis of the County response to the Council’s 4 questions requested in February 2023. See Enclosed. In essence, substantive answers were not provided, remain undefined andunsupportedwith FACTS.No particular action is requested. th 2)The County has invited the City to participate in a Project Management Team (PMT) meeting related to the 58 street extension. At this time there is not a supplied agenda and we are advised that the purpose of the meeting is as followsfrom Frank Ticknor- DeputyCounty Engineer: (SEE TEXT BOX BELOW) Thinking about this, much of this is after-the-fact strategizing to enable ultimate support forthe projectin the community– versus a front-endanalysis of need and impact which was neverundertaken. We are unsure of what thiswill all ultimately include or timetable– but it is a fait-accompli ooking for justification and buy inand discussion will simplybe about “access”and “drainage”– IT IS NOT ABOUT the projectpro or con. th That stated, staff would offer that we should attend the May 24meeting with Washington County for the purposes of listening and gathering updates on timelines and other data. Is Staff directed to inform the County that it is not to be considered a specific “partner” in the development of any element of this Project and request that the County not list the City as such? Does the Council desire Staff to report back after this meeting as to what is learned, anticipated and for more guidancebefore further participation is offered? This “process” will also include presumptions that the City will be providing funding and will ultimately seek those from the City. Naturally, we assume the City Council is not going to pay these. – But please advise…? Page 33 of 50 The letter dated April from Commissioner Kriesel contains a continued position that the County would again expect the City to pay for their costs as outlined in their COST SHARE POLICY. This remains very interesting as of course the County cannot compel the City to offer any such payments and would seem very unlikely at this juncture. Would the County make payments to the City if it had a similar COST SHARE policy for City streets – such as enclosed? I have drafted that for you to possibly discuss and begin to evaluate. This fun “sample” requires financial participation from Washington County and State of Minnesota for improvements on City roadways and trails. Would the City Council like to consider something similar? Make no mistake the County and the State are actively looking to shift their costs to others without any documentation of additional or unique local benefit. If City road cost liabilities are $35,000,000+/- in the coming decades – the County cost share would be +/- $7,000,000. Reducing CIty costs….Or – for example, the City recent projects of 2022 Mill and Overlay and Norell Ave. would carry total cost to the County of $650,000 +/- (see enclosed) – reducing City costs. I would personally look forward to County comments about it and hear their arguments about why they should not pay these for the City or any other community. Maybe the City would offer them a VARIANCE as Commissioner Kriesel opines that they have not granted in their similar policy? Page 34 of 50 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Phone (651) 439-4439 Fax (651) 439-0574 April 14th, 2023 Board Chairman Gary Kriesel & County Board Members C/O Jennifer Wagenius, Deputy County Administrator Washington County nd 14949 62 Street N Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Chair Kriesel & County Board Members: We are writing regarding Washington County’s proposed County Road 15 Connection (the “Project”) discussed at the County’s April 11, 2023 Work Session and a possible action under Minn. Stat. §163.11 to th take over 58Street from the City of Oak Park Heights. As the County has been aware for many months and years now, the City has serious concern about the County’s intention and effort to build a county-road th extension of 58 Street between Stillwater Blvd. and Manning Avenue. Procedural Concerns: Our City has outlined many procedural concerns to the underlying process that has led us all to this juncture. We again offer and can unilaterally document that at no time has the County made a honest effort to engage the City of Oak Park Heights, our business community and our other partners that would be expected for a project of this scale. Most recently, for example, the City sent a letter on February 3rd, 2023 specifically pointing out traffic concerns with the proposed Project and offered to have its consulting Engineer meet with County Staff to discuss, analyze and address those concerns. By its lack of response or engagement, the County apparently declined that offer. This most recent example is but one of many examples of the City attempting to reach out an olive branch to discuss its concerns over the course of years. Instead, the County has given all deference to the City of Stillwater and a Developer without regard to the specific community of Oak Park Heights in which a significant part of the Project is located and will most th directly impact. This is made more apparent by the recent act of your April 11, 2023 workshop meeting wherein certain parties (i.e. Stillwater and the School District) were invited to attend and participate while Oak Park Heights was not invited and instead had to take its own initiative to view the Board’s agenda and have its representatives opt to be present. The County’s efforts to evade Oak Park Heights’ offers to meet is further evidenced by County Commissioner statements at the recent meeting that they had held prior meetings with City of Stillwater representatives, yet no such meeting has been proffered to Oak Park Heights. Substantive Concerns: Please note, our City has outlined many substantive concerns with that this Project including the following. Page 35 of 50 1. The analysis of current and future traffic flow patterns and loads has not been adequately studied nor addressed. Our research indicates the Project would cause burden upon Memorial Avenue and require City investment in infrastructure on Memorial Ave. that is not currently needed with existing traffic load but will likely become necessary if this Project moves forward. The Project th would increase traffic burdens in our community at Stillwater Blvd and 58 Street and yet is not expected to offer our City with a clear nor sustainable fiscal benefit to address those burdens. The County has refused to engage or consider these impacts. To make matters worse, our studies show that this Project likely will stress our existing businesses, potentially resulting in business closures which impacts our tax-base in a time-horizon where our City is facing the imminent closure of the A.S. King Plant. 2. Prior discussions and limited engagement have been premised upon a belief that this Project would constitute a County State-Aid Highway under Minn. Statutes chapter 162. This would only make sense since the existing northerly Manning Avenue leg of CSAH 15 and the southerly Stillwater Blvd. leg of CSAH 15 are both State-Aid Highways. Tellingly, Statute § 162.02, subd. 7 & subd. 8 would require the County to obtain approval of the Project plans from the Oak Park Heights City Council to establish a new county state-aid highway. And given the objections of Oak Park Heights, the parties should be pursuing dispute resolution under § 162.02, subd. 8a. Per th your recent workshop, interestingly, it now appears the County intends to take the existing 58 Street and extend it as an ordinary county highway under Section 163.11. This of course will awkwardly create a roughly ¾ mile segment of Count Highway 15 that will not be a State-Aid Highway. This makes little sense, but seems to be the County’s method to avoid meaningful discussions with and approval from Oak Park Heights and actually involve the community at large. 3. The County claims to desire connectivity of its county-highway system as its rationale for the Project, and wanting to divert traffic away from Hwy 36 and onto county roads. Yet the County th declines Oak Park Heights’ suggestion that the County should agree to take over all of 58 Street, running east of Stillwater Blvd. all the way across to Oakgreen Avenue thence north to STH 36. th The County’s apparent objection is that the additional segment of 58 Street would not create th connectivity to other County highways. Yet just north of 58 Street and Oakgreen, across Hwy 36, lies Greeley Street in Stillwater which constitutes County Hwy 66 which is not connected. Thus interconnection to another county highway could indeed be made by the suggestion of Oak Park Heights, which the County has rejected. Again, the County’s stated objectives are not consistent.. 4. We have supplied independent Engineering and Market Impact Data to your Staff. Our positions provided are not based on conjecture or speculation, rather we have taken the time to study these issues in-depth. The County has disregarded each of these and has failed to engage in discussing these concerns. 5. The County’s perspective that it is offering to fund costs “… for the City…” is interesting - if this is a Regional Project and/or one that is desirous of the County, then it is the burden of the County to fund all such costs. It is a plain fact that the County has a duty to fund its own projects nor seek funds from others without a clear demonstration of local benefit. We fail to see how this is a unreasonable position. We have explained this to County staff on many occasions and in writing. Beyond the concepts of double-taxation, Oak Park Heights too can adopt various “Cost Share Policies” that have no defensible correlation to benefit and we would expect your entity would take a similar position should we do so. Page 36 of 50 6. Terms utilized such as Economic Development, Safe-Routes to School, “Safety Concerns”, and Direct Connectivity are definitively important, however – when none of these matters are documented to be verifiable, use very-loose definitions nor meet rational / professional tests - our City further questions how this process continues to unfold. Again, the City has shared data with your staff and can affirm these positions. This should be concerning to the County Board before it seeks to invest $12,000,000 (likely far more) in a roadway. Instead a reasonable pause is warranted to hold a broad re-engagement of needs, alternatives and impacts with all partners – not just a select few. Ultimately, if the County desires to implement Minn. Stat. § 163.11 – and become the active steward of this portion of roadway, that is a choice it may decide to make, but such action does not alter the above facts. Such an action by the County would certainly not aid in altering Oak Park Heights lack of support for this proposal at this time given the lack of honest process, lack of legitimate documentation of need, and unwillingness to even discuss nor address the possible impacts in our community. Given this unilateral act which inherently nets the County little, the City will again be placed in a position to promptly advise our Federal, State and Regional partners of this dissent. We would expect this to mirror our communications to the MET COUNCIL from 2020. These challenging positions aside, at this time the entirety of the Oak Park Heights City Council is amenable to meet with the entirety of Washington County Board – perhaps in the next 90 days - in a joint work- session meeting to directly exchange ideas and concerns about this Project so that the two entities can better understand the other’s perspectives and to ensure clear data is being shared. Our Council will await feedback from you as to if or what that discussion could include or when. Sincerely, ___________________________ Mayor Mary McComber ___________________________ Councilmember Mike Runk ___________________________ Councilmember Chuck Dougherty ___________________________ Councilmember Mike Liljegren ___________________________ Councilmember Carly Johnson Page 37 of 50 Page 38 of 50 Page 39 of 50 Page 40 of 50 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Phone (651) 439-4439 Fax (651) 439-0574 5-5-23 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Eric Johnson, City Administrator RE: Council’s 4 questions to Washington County. rd The City Council requested (Feb 3) answers to four questions related to the proposed Washington th County 58 Street – Frontage Road. The responses receive are provided below along with staff analysis: The County RAW RESPONSES – via an email dated 4/7/23 is ENCLOSED. Question 1. Provide to the City of Oak Park Heights a memo/ report that: i) outlines the County's specific desire for this particular CSAH and the specific goals the County expects it would be accomplished with the construction of this particular CSAH. And, ii) its most recent total cost estimate that draws a defensible parallel with real-world cost expectations and data provided to the State of Minnesota in the County's Sales tax listing of Projects-(in 2023 figures). (The City Council is not asking for decades-old history or generalities that may support a grant application, but rather very specific and defensible points without conjecture.) COUNTY RESPONSE: 1.a. County’s desire for the Manning Avenue Connection and goals it would accomplish a. Connect the major north-south backbone of the county road infrastructure b. Enhance safety for motorists by eliminating the need to travel on a busy Hwy 36 between Manning Avenue and Stillwater Blvd c. Add a new trail to allow pedestrian and bicyclists to move safely across Hwy 36 and provide connectivity to the Regional Trail system d. Provide an alternate route to nearby Stillwater High School, helping to alleviate the traffic congestion that happens especially during the morning, increasing safety for students and others in the area e. Support economic development f. The most recent cost estimate is as included in the CIP, $12.2M. Given today’s construction market those estimates may be low requiring the county board to consider reducing the scope of the project or allocating additional resources. ANALYSIS: The County desiring a major “north-south backbone” as noted in response a. is a choice the County may certainly desire to pursue. This is to be construed as a REGIONAL facility. The challenge with this desire however is that there were no alternatives discussed in the community and perhaps most interestingly – based on STANTEC analysis .. who will wait the 2.5 minutes to make the westbound left? So what will happen – they will use the SLIP LANE - 52 seconds. The responses only offer vague generalities and without proof of any such claim about SAFETY – specifically in parts b and d. – How is this SAFER? There is not data provided that supports these specific claims which is what the City requested. Page 41 of 50 The same is true oftheelement of e.economic development– no data is provided and to the best of my knowledge they have not included nor requested any such analysis from their WCCDA the approved County Economic Development arm. The project plainly subsidizes – non-living wage jobs andis not anticipated to be fiscally positive for likely 25 years – likely never.SOME POINT– if built ..the County will claim thisis a LOCAL ROAD and willseek to then divest itselfof thisleaving local government to pay for this. The County however does plainly offer that their $12.2 Million estimate “may be low” – that may need to consider reducing the scope of the project or allocating additional resources. Question 2.What would the County believe would be the specific, distinct and defensible benefits this Project brings to the residents, businesses, and taxpayers of Oak Park Heights? (The City Council is not asking forgeneralities or benefits to other entities outside of Oak Park Heights ... but rather very identifiable benefits that can be enumerated and supported by DATA for our entities in our City. Specific please.) COUNTY RESPONSE: 2.Benefits to residents, businesses, and taxpayers of Oak Park Heights a.Enhance safety for motorists by eliminating the need to travel on a busy Hwy 36 between Manning Avenue and Stillwater Blvd b.Add a new trail to allow pedestrian and bicyclists to move safely across Hwy 36 and provide connectivity to the Regional Trail system c.Provide an alternate route to nearby Stillwater High School, helping to alleviate the traffic congestion that happens especially during the morning, increasing safety for students and others in the area d.Support economic development ANALYSIS: Again, items a and c and d lack any specificity or support. The question essentially was not even answered.Impacts/ benefitsto the City are not provided as requested. Question 3.What was the cost of westbound the SLIP LANE from Stillwater Blvd to Manning Ave; AND, has there been a cost estimate for an eastbound from Manning Ave. to Stillwater Blvd - if so what is that? Was this eastbound slip lane considered? If not, why? COUNTY RESPONSE: a.Neither of these cost estimates are available. b.An eastbound slip lane was contemplated as part of the Manning interchange project. Hwy. 36 is under MNDOT jurisdiction and MNDOT has not desired an eastbound slip lane in the past. While the county would not oppose a slip lane, a slip lane would not meet several of the stated project goals. ANALYSIS: If the County does not know what a cost of an EASTBOUND Slip lane may be – that is possible without some deeper estimates, but it is very challenging for the County to offer that they do not know or have the cost estimate for the WESTBOUND? The short response states that a SLIP LANE would “…not meet several of the stated project goals”? This is false – many of the stated goals are ill- defined, but even then would likely be better accomplished via a slip lane –versus the County essentially building what would be a “local road”. Further, we know there this a LEVEL of SERVICE of “F” at the 58th and STW Blvd intersection with this project.It makes congestion WORSE! Page 42 of 50 Question 4. Including slip-lanes, there are likely other apparent alternatives to making this particular CSAH connection. What other options have been considered by the County and what, from the County's perspective, are their "pros and cons"? County Response: “Over the past several decades many alternatives have been considered and shared with city partners. Due to development that has since occurred most of those alternatives are no longer viable”. ANALYSIS: The City very plainly asked for what alternatives the County explored to this “particular CSAH connection”. The response does not provide a direct answer – alluding to the 1997 process and those options. It does not engage any relevant process in today’s world – post-new Bridge and Economic Systems. So NO.. there was no review of alternatives in the last 30 years. There was no valid analysis or weighing of options (such the slip lane, 62nd street in STW or the planned North Frontage Road to some future hospital?). And of course, the Manning Interchange process did NOT include any such valid discussion. FINAL NOTE ON REGIONAL TRAIL ELEMENTS: If the County was simply requesting the general support of a REGIONAL TRAIL in this area, that would be likely positive in most respects – but it is inextricably tied to the larger project and it is difficult to separate those values from the balance of building a new County Highway. Page 43 of 50 rd Excerpt from City Feb 3letter: Page 44 of 50 Page 45 of 50 Page 46 of 50 City Cost Share Policy – Roadway and Trail Improvements City operated streets and trail-ways serve significant functions for mobility for City residents and businesses. Many of these facilities ALSO materially support similar objectives for the State and the County residents and business that do not reside in the City and which also support for their respective tax bases. In recent years the State has implemented infrastructure changes that will shift traffic from their State systems (STH 36) to City operated streets and has sought to divest themselves of local transportation systems such as frontage roads and other trunk highways. Lastly, the City does not receive LGA funding that offers consistent State contribution to its transportation systems, nor does the State pay local street assessments. Similarly, the County seeks cities to subsidize County facilities without specific identification of a unique local benefit and without acknowledgment that City residents and businesses already contribute property taxes and sales taxes to the County for its transportation purposes – resulting in double taxation. Lastly, the County cost share policy unfairly burdens cities compared to townships without clear justification and enables County funding only to communities that are capable of paying local cost sharing. Considering these shifts, the City may consider the implementation of the following cost share parameters and seek contributions from the State and County for its transportation systems as these also benefit State and County entities and the traffic generated outside the local populations. Accordingly, at such time as when the City performs any of the following on any of its locally operated streets (such as mill and overlays, reclaim projects or general reconstruction on City Streets, including related curbing and stormwater facilities), the City may seek the listed cost percentages as applied to the Total Costs from the State and County. Total Costs (including design, land acquisition, admin and construction) will be calculated for each project and the percentage outlined below would be applicable. These cost shares would be in addition any direct street assessments that may be sought when the abutting property is owned by such public entity. Road Type County Share % State Share % City Share % Arterial 20 10 70 Collector 10 5 85 Local Road 5 0 95 Trail Type County Share % State Share% City Share % Sidewalk or Trailway along Arterials 20 10 70 Sidewalk or Trailway along Collector 5 5 90 Sidewalk or Trailway along Local Road 5 0 95 Page 47 of 50 Page 48 of 50 Page 49 of 50 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 50 of 50