Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
St. Croix River Correspondence, 2004-2008
t St. Croix River Crossing Project--Layout History of TH 36 from TH 5 to TH 95 Layouts: 1990 Draft Environmental Impact Statement(Pages 1-2) 1995 Final Environmental Impact Statement(Pages 3-7) 2001 Supplemental Draft EIS ---not released to the public (Pages 8-9) 2001 TH 36 Subarea/Inter-Regional Corridor Study(Pages 10-13) 2002 TH 36 Partnership Study/Concept"F"Refinement(Pages 14-23) 2003 Amended Scoping Document/2004 Final Scoping Decision Document(Pages 24-29) 2004 Supplemental Draft EIS (Pages 30-32) o j cc+ P:\myfiles\stcroixrivercrossing\l ayouthistoryfrom1990-2004sdeis.doc 9/7/04 1 • . , 1 k , • PHOTO COPY ,?:4:2?,:g:_::::::g::::ii.:.::..::::::;::;I:::::.::-il:. • ...,,,,„'•.- ',Dat e O, ctobe,r 1 6,,1,,,..9 9,.'7 Stillwater-Houltor -Dra ,,...,.. ...... .. ,... '....., .., ,.... , . . -•:',,,.,,, -,, ,,-- :::'-... ::: -,,,, _'..--.. - Environmental Impac t Statement e n. t ..,. - . . and -‘ - - , • . • x.:„.::...„.....:„.„:„:„....:................, ... ,. ::,:::.:::::: :.:,,,:::::::.,....::::::::...::::::::::::::::41,..: :.:.:,:::.::-.:::::Ki::::::::.:::::::g:::::-.,::::::::t., ......:::::.:K:ir..:::::::::::::::::„:„:„1: lig:I.ix,..:I.;_a:-.1:::::.: :::::::::_:.::::::: Section 4(f) Evaluations :::;::::::::::::::::*:.5*:::::'::::::::*:::,:.4 ..-. ::::•::::::re:::$......:.:-::i;:j.::.:::::-4,.;;:::::•-:•• 1 4 &:-:;:,::::;:;.:•:.•.;.:g.f.,:....::;?:•:::::::...:::,•::: "K§'''''•,:':'•:•.f.V•:.: ,,. ... .... ,,. 5 . ,,,• -....::::::,:kr::S.,::••:••:.:4:-:•:•'•:•.,....: .• . - - • •::.:•:-:.:.:-:.:,;•.:•..:::.•.-,..:•:,.,..:•...>.• ,•:•:•:•:•:,,:,....x.:•:-:•:.:•:,:x;:<...:.;.:.: '...t ::::::::::::::•::::::::::::n3031::::::::,..v::: . „.,„.., '4' ::::::::.:i:::::::;:::iii:;:i:;:if,*iii:g:2:::::•$;:. , ,,,,,, L, ".11.: :::::::::::::::•::::::::::.:4x,,n...,.:4,:$..::: _ ,, ... , • . , . - - „ -_ .. • . , ._ :::::;,:•::::::::::::,:*;:::::::::::::::::;:::,:÷5..6. & ::::::•:::::%:::,:::.?,:•.:*:::::::::•:•:•:,:::::::::k.:' 'g'" :::::::.:*:::::n::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::•:•:s;::i ' - ::::::::::::::.*:44-::•:::•••:•:•::::•:•:.::$:::::, —---'''''"'''''',•••••-•• • i: .:-•,:•:•:::::::::::::•:.:::.:.:;:,....k..::,:•••::::...;.; tf.:',Kx.:.:.::::•::k.,:%:,..;:•:•:,:•:•:.:.:. , State Trunk Highway 36 .....:•:.:,.:„.:,...:.:.:„:„...r.:„:„.„.:„.:., ..,......•.. .,........., 4 . , Minnesota S P 8214-92 Minnesota S.P. ,8217 10 v.,.......:,.. •,„...,....., .--, .....-:::::::-,..........-:,-:-...-..„.....„...„...:...„..:„...„:„.....::.• , • . . , . State Trunk Highw ay 64 • If- .:....;:k:•:::-:::4::::,..:•.:X4:::`..1:::-:•: . ":::::::-...*:.•',:4:?.:::::::::::::•':::::*:::"...:. ' ' - - • , . .. . , .. .. . . ,_. . . , Wisconsi n S.P. T D 155 0_' 0-0220 ,•_ , _,_ :::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...kiiii:Eii*:::::.;:ii . . i ::::::::::::::::::-,::::::::::,.::::::::,::::::,:.:,...: . _ :.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::...1,:::::::::::::::::::::::4 From Jct. T.H. 36 , . ... .... ., P it:iNglaiz%giglig;g ty Minnesota to Co.e Itc1-'''; in Washington County, - - ., .• .... . • . ..., . , ,,_ , , - ' ,.•::;:::::.:::*..f-iii.?:..:K.::::::;:::':::.,':::::::: ' - •... ..,- ... . ., , , - .. . • ‘q- Ifini:P:111 -i "K A point on S.T.H. 64 ........,:..:....:t.:.:•:a::: ::::::::,' Wisconsin .._ ,.. ..,. . . two and one-half miles pas LI-o 1_I. . . ,,,......:,...„....„....„:„.,..,. c,,, Croix t..,ro St.•••••...:......„,:::::::::..:::::::::..::::::::::., 0L. • River, in St Croix'County,-Wisco .. ....iii:::g::?.:::::•57.,-.:-:•::,:":.:-.,...k*,..-=':::::::-.... „ , , - . . • - •-"., ?;:ii..:.::::::::::::::.,-,:-:,::::::.::::-.::::..*;, ....,,:-.:,:-:-::.:,:.::•:.:.:;:.:p..:::::;:......::.:, --. ' :::::::$::::::-,:::•0..:.fe....-..:.-.K.§:.:-.:.:.:::.:,.. „ ,,, ,. _. , ,„„.,. - .-. .- -:.-- . ..• :*:;:::::::'::::::::::...-.:.:...:;:.:•;:;:..:::::::5:::.:. 71 .E:E:::::::::::::::::::::,:•:•f:::::•:;.:.:.:.:.:,,:. _ . -• , ,._.• . . ::.:.,..x.:•:.:.:.:::;:::•••::;:.x...,.:.,,,,,.. *:••:•:•:•::,:....x.:..:...:::•:;.:•••::::-..:.:;:•:. March 1990 • ,,, • . , ,_ , ••••••••••••••••••••••••..............,......... . - • •••••-..••••••-----.... ,. ' - I, -.::,-r. ‘'' l'.:-,-...'-..7,,,- •,;- •••••••••••••,...... ...... . . . District . . ..... ,-- -,-- - Prepared by _ • , ,, 3485 Hadley ii Avenue.'- --.-- ---' 1•10,,,„,•-.;,,,,-;.,;-,,." • %.• 1 . ■ ::::::;:::::::::::::;:::;::::::•:-:::::::•:•:-:;.::..;;;; Oakdale''/Viii.-55128,,,-..,,-,.,..:-:,.,-„,--:,-",-:,•-... :,- ' :*::::::::::::::•:,,,--,:::„...,,,,,, ••-•••••••.•-•••,-.-••••••-•• . ................. ..,...,.... ,- ••••,••••••-•.........„..,,,........... . :-.4....._:::*:-.K..x.,:::::::::::::::::„:::•:-:.:: . .. , . .. , _.. , ,.. . . - .. ,. . . . :. -.,- ,...,,,-.--.',5„,„...,,t-c.:-;.-1,-;.:,-;-,.4.,..-4.:"...',-,-;,,,,,,,,f,,,,,,,,,-• .....1 ,- - -,..„,:: 1,•.,--,.-, -- :f-=',..-...., , ,,..:,....,..:-;,,,..„..,,,,,,,..•,;,,-;,..,-_,,a-,..,-.1,-,,..:2;-..-,„-,•?...,,,,,,...,,-,-..41-,•;,,,,,,,:,--„,..-„,.. - . . i ALTERNATIVES [ DISMISSED ALTERNATIVES AND REASONS FOR 1 -DISMISSAL IIn 1984,the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments forest areas,and operating farmsteads. __ of Transportation identified several broad corridors Four corridors that involved the construction of to address the highway safety and congestion con- replacement river crossings were originally-iden- 1 cens found in the Stillwater and Houlton areas. Important factors in the identification and later tified:the North Corridor,the Central Corridor,the I Central Corridor Alternate,and the South Corridor refinement of the corridors were: avoidance of (see figure 6). In addition to these alternative cor- populated areas and commercial concentrations ridors, Bridge Replacement-On-Site, and NO- where possible; the use of existing transportation BUILD were also identified in the study proposal corridors where possible;and the avoidance of his- document entitled Scoping Document/Draft Study I toric sites,parks,public facilities,cemeteries,wet- Outline,dated October,1985. lands,inland water bodies,steep slopes,hardwood o ) anowNeW 1 1 / '7 I I:9 g;-'%;':;,::-X-5-5?, 1 Ii .v.. ®/r///,,r l f• I t w S�OOcNCr i, //i/ w1z w 4,—7.1:1-...7:-....45,4•A ::g �'- II ji / oy �ow;o°ti , ;%1---- NJ I / a, d ' w %/ NORTH CORRIDOR CENTRAL CORRIDOR i na SOUTH CORRIDOR Fq CENTRAL CORRIDOR ALTERNATE INE i . CENTRAL AND SOUTH CORRIDORS COMBINED Figure 6 Early Corridor Alternatives Stillwater-Houlton River Crossing Draft EIS. 13 • 1 •, •r +'' ... ,c,- y -r''t �vl.ti.* .� .-z ; f,_i.. `''fit ` ,. tea'. .. -- , ,s. : h 3-t- , s. .I � 5..:-. Ste" �,•:,z.. ''':'',, .,-_,Paz ,._.,.' h '' . tC. t".:: �c�rc; .xta �k.a�1` 7 t m : : . :',..,.:: :_k-i•LiO,,,,.:'":X.:-..-,,"•'.::. final Environmental Impact Staternnt „� : r t .Evaluation fo he and Se ct on � ) .:., . ,., ..•.•...,.. - .- , • , ,,,,,.„.„.„,...,„:„,,,,„,„„„,„,„,,,,th.:: •, ,..., „..:. New St. Croix River Crossing ( i'r? ,. .,. , , ..,.. ,...„. ,.,,,,,,, , ,. . , , -,i. . s WISCONSIN” M I NkAI . %. .... .6 4 .. , . . . , „, . . .„. ... .. „ ..,..... ... _ .., I•. .. 1` # IE .gall:, }gyp ' '' 8'� d.,';wt�.a f"f t"'•-4.ki P1i S k j 8 i 1 R II a ti rt fi,1 f 14 i i ,I M^ y Sr t 7 k Ns4,N *,1�2--Wst A.II a -V -usr 'y i 3 y p:."hr+ r e I, -4. 4I ( ry 41 �v{ ,� 5 i 7 i*`t �ge,, ,C •iI.AV' •M.,t- . ,P, L tl C K -i "n K,+et J p '"s 'i>'`F v. - 1 `�� � 1 J m ; x t'],r•_43 7, 4 z , { C y, e .,,M`LE, B r re i`suF d:,i , �i a?�l ,Vt IS j -�. r 5 -'7� -`9— "o- � � `w I 4- `Y.� t"n+. s I � h I s` ` - le Y r 4.� �' St', wsx tf a .N I a'S"'a„ �r fi �,x,p� �. _ r 'St P Wai - a-�r • N.: „� " "'ii r. ' R' -a•at r"4",:`4„.." 114., . �,P,�, at.I. �,s's,".•41, 'i .° is - ✓'„"a„ h " c " 4• . �+" -'',' .'"G t+ * wi •4^,.I,.. rTg�. 'd''? _5 k"�,y r4'. tom.�l i.,w ?T 4" z ;• .'' r "ia� w y Ex3 h-a '+'.>w:..': w•7 �"F- ra s x-,,y....7„�. r:; tiny } °1ri li y j 'oi'f�°"s:z` s� .r„` ,'t'wo” .'*`- - ,t- -�12Y2.T s `T .'w- ;^, o- -w,� M� �a F1 �" �' swws�` grog� '`�'��ds � xg "S 'fir.:yL i - r. ; . , ; r� ,.s -„...,i < .,,t. : tt .. tp ( �., q4:.�,� _ ke,p1Fk� l���I. ,. c 6m�• - ,: .- -. � .... .�:f'° -fin L �.. s - s 1 t s :d, .. ;^ - 111 • a- ' 4 .. ...Y”: v......,. r, ___ x..sr saw .: - ec.-- ,5 -`�'-•: .. W,.. .. a. ,3+K:. ,xf�b�s^?�K;an:�-a,..�'"w.,� ..,rw,.in .._-' 4 ` . a x ? Mo t t s „ -ems ? A • F,.T x in a p on .ne �rm r r 5 ns§ Q W i sconSyn t artnl t o f T ra �ora ion: q• A fo edral g ts ; mtrato� w 4 � y r - ---- - - - 1.4.1*0,----- • . . • ... .,:... . ...% . - ,. ,--... Ir'-'-r-,. -'.'-. • • . r , - - I :'ir: .- r • . ....„ .. ...- . . - -.;,... . - . I . L . , ,,. . . ,.:. ,.. County Road 15 . 1- County Road 15 • • H o c = . I . - crt 70 , o . co , • ( (a9, . I - 1 . CL --s. - ND COD .4 F.... fr 1 I ::3 . .L 0 0,. 3:a Norell Ave. Washington Ave '909D,,, ..4 tr) . m I 5112 cm I it, c 3 • I C/) ••41 , 3:* .. , :-.1 03 X Oaknreen A . ve 2 CD - 20 -t, • i • S'. . 'CD Nc CL .22 ,t rG eeley St. • Ell ''1 Fab M CZ z:1 cp I■1 • 0) R so —4 Osgood Ave. . County Road 24 Mill , II 1411 • Wig .4111111 I a) . 7 I . ' 01111k.? ":„::::::.4,:,:ige6:::::.§:::::ii..§::::'*;:.0.Q.::.*‘:::t.:',....,,,..- -. . ....................,..„... . ......,,,,,,,,,,,,::§::,::::„::::::::,.„„:.:::::::,„:„,.::::,::::„,::::::,,,:::::::::,::,:............ • • ....,,,,,,x,..:::::::s::kv;:.x.:;x:•:::::.:::::::::::*:::::::::::::::::::::::.:ssr::: *- :::::'. t i.j..ir ri I - - - .g.....0::- ,,,, --.':::::: ::::..rrs: FANN'c\''43 k'''"I'; .„...4*;..tIt:115.0:"''' .. th■— . ''''''''''''''''''. '..........-- . _ •, .x.,..........K.::.,,,,,r3,,,,,,m.,::,. -- - - , N, Iv cc, --, - ,, Frw.,.,,i,.**:,,,,..- 6 '• •,.. ,:■... ,.; ,, :-..:'S' '''...M.,, j .::;..:: ,)...0:,..0 .: i 0 = A Ci 1 ` s.: ::::::‘,"....;.,:,..-., -.-,...,....o. .. ............ ........,,... —.....„ .. ..... ... .,,,,Z....,,,,,,,,,,,,,,::■,,,,,S7;,•,,,,,,,,X,,,M:,,' % ••• , ' 1 .......... -...,,, .....„ ..... •,,...•$.V.••;,,::;:ii;::::::,,,,,,,,:,..,?...,:::,,,■'::::.,,,,,...:S,:■.: N. • .. 1 -.,..... ........ ..-..... 1 • ••„-•••••• ..-...„. .-...•.... .....,....,... ".".•-IN ,........... ...,....... II)..1.-..4 43 E.E..'•9.-.-.-u-s-- -a' ". :: ' :.' ' 1 • '.....,::::;;;;::',:;::::;;:::::.,. ........„-„, . .......,..... ...,....„-- .. ... .,...........- .....,„.„. ....„...... / ...„....., 3 ..::::geri. .... : I.:-: o = . . ' • 15th St. ......„... . ...,.. ...... .... • • :::::: :.,::::::.::. :;::: :g:::.,::::::: : ..Z i I CV ig -,-,rirji..s*::,:,:f4,....-: 7:1 csi s w . 1 - i a m 20th St. 1 vt - z ... .. 's mk . ". -- 1 k i in = ct. • .1 - c(1) . ca • -- ri 23rd St. N....,..." 'vs . r . 0 0 . ... - _ • -- CA • . C . " 14- nzi • . . rn S . I t s + l `s sa ; � +iii i t {, \ x 1 # _ # 7• un 1. i t 1t( - I s t: ' ..I -1 I; i1i .4„,-;:',.-f..,,,x( { �r � t ll 1 ft }yi !.. g 7iit _ i ,1. ,P . w F iY � t• x�`.1��' � x - ... 1 4 i. 1 .ti'. ii t i . ,° ' }i fi . 1 air i• 1 � �°� } 11` r • 1 .+ k f 1 , 'pia ": t l� Il j tNt � F ���� • i'1 t I\ .Y J < -; f j �� 4. t) t ` �� ; I i ;SI ( \Z . t 1.111i1 f 1:P it i,t • o3 `,1 { • ... .# LI c� ti i "1 4i• s,' \ �i .i :# t:; • to i - i :- • i J t • cr'< t. 3 I . - r j 'v i 11 - — - - -- - - , .. .. , . -,-.,..-•:;,.) •,,...r 3 , .11 i, .„.T,,,.. . . ... .... . , . 1 ) 1'• ' ' '- '• I- ':• : !!'li-l'i.''.1 e ,: ! • .',-- ,- : '': '-''' •, ,. H‘, 1 ---.,,.',',1?.;.• -----, ...,-- 141 , .. • . ..',. .=:?...-7.•.i, -.: . 1° . •k"..' ' --- l,. 1 1..-t.:-.,..ds i: "I , .. - .:. . 3,.r... ..,....,. --: ,c.",:::::.... -,.„;',...,:. , 311 ,_ in r•,pr.'•' • ; •••:' • :...-.6 ' • •• • 1 ' '$4- •r•I---- '•: -.. -'1-t'l,' l'•,;''1--k •''''A.,.:: -- 1 - ----;' ' ; ns' • -- ''- '--'-^ '' ' i',1' 4;:.-,„-:::r.:-•:--..-il't'' ''k; , s - :-, •-..-,--4-,.._,% :'''' ., •,., _ .'•41 i 'rt' .••ti44 ..,:,t-1_,,,sr., -_,1-t: ,',.•4••••••••,_ , •t I; 1' l'/!' •• 1'4:4, r -----!•—, `''•--- "' • . ' tj-_,.._ '., •••' ... i,..!:• il.!..'.1 r' tp_ff__._•, ;,.. • - !,----,- • • ' :',..!':'...•-•:"- i, - ,.,,,'11:•--_•!-',',,- ,A i . , . 4. „ ,., , ; ,, ,„; 7,k r, g , , .-•;C ' s' .-- N`f•-,--,--,...- ..-1•,,,••,-,,,-i< •-4-••,‘,..s: •ste--.---"‘,..,..- .••,::>s . ,----.,:-...- - -. ____,* v•,-- _....-k . ..;74•1:-.-•:1•1-;;-4••44: . ,•• .• -• -, r. . ,, .t 1,--.- -- - • z--— _,•?."1...‹.,r; c")---- - '''','•.••:•••.4 4 •-• l'', - - ,r r----!....,--•4:.,r-,:'.11,r.-J„,-1-..,;;.-t;4•e#,..,, S ,,,•'',..!?-, . 1:1.;_ -J....,4-,,...1:.-Af. . -.'•-•- "--4,•-:•v. :•-1,•-•-'•.,-- •,---• .• . `.- , ' -,. •••••.,-7,1 - ri, If .:,..-,‘_1 1! ,,,1'3_P,,,:::,:! :,.,..;i,-:,_L-.: •\\•,•,,•''' . ,. ' - ' {7, '--e-', ' 1-. • :. 1 --7,;;.,..., •,:,z,s. ,, ,,...,...,•.,.•••••,, , . . .., •',,":Y,' - • Tr., .-: :... i,.., . •„,... • 1, ._ '.4-,, ,.-,-..- • .. . . 4.. -,,,i-',..F.; . .....- 4:,..7 .„-.,0,7 ;.',.- ",.,'F,:,', '• ; ,':',.r • ' - •, ;•.,-,F.--:,:•,;4.-, , • ,-,:•,•-,•••-•.,-!..• ,..,--•: • :I.,---.-; , IL. ,.... ,-..,-....- ,.•. ::,... ,--:-.-. - ,• ., -., . ,, =if ;117 =....,, .., ,1,,s,....:..• .,, — ,- -: ... • ',-.:;. .I.., :, :. - '. '. ;'1 N,11 I•k.- ,;---, _ . y..: • '.--. i •,.. .-:"--2,„• - ,,,,-, :• it i ':',, '`i---7;',..ii , :IL. ''''' • , , ._..: . -.. ir..,.;--- .!,:g;.,'. : - !:.. . - ,. ;;. • - -.”1 . •„I's...-; )•J'-'",' ..,,---4--_ Ill , A ...i.,---=.,,---,...,--- ,_ I.‘.„-, ,:, ,r.,:1-.;, -_ ...., ,...,,:. ;0.71,:'-'7.'N"'-''..,`-,';?:.',' ,I:;:kt\;, •-■.,,,:.,...L'''';''.1" ''-{..--_,,,'''' '17'11 t.. ff ; ''' ,- :,,,...__,._,.1„., . '..- ,ii.::_-,,--_,F.4.......„..,;.; ,,,,,...,..-______,__________--________„,...-, -- .1.11„,,_____,.....-- --....,,,,..s„, — -- ___,' ,-,:,...\\' ILIT's '1,.' •,,,i. .1 ' • --- L ---------'-'•----- ---•••••-7••• •■•----iiiirlii14---- -----„_,-..,..... ,•_,;, ,, : ----__7.--'----.....--7.7, — - .----e---_,..,.----- ..- --_,_ ____. --, --_---_________„.-..7.5„-fi 1 Fir.r.-7-_,-____-_____ -•,--„,„,,%:.,,,,-, :. „•,-,, \ *,••-•.., ,• - ,. -- • ,..-7-- ',-•--•--.-_,Iir---77--11,-----:„;.7. r-,..----p.i4.......-..II. 1 , (--,,,t;,-,-,--,=...--...,-.-----...--s-'4...,:t.%---,-,::-.), k •_:,, , . , . • • '- l' t P - -!, '1,:' `s-7° i`..-'f. '',. -.'!'':i .•,- {: ‘...:',,••-•,-,;:•-•,*'',;= . '..,N-2-!--<-!ge.-! ',' :,)'!1-', i :' • , 1 . 1 :: ri 7..• ,,,----,:-... i '\ :- ..:.-;,._- ',, 11, ',V•_ '-',N;•' ikr•:•N. ''' ', ' •.•-' •'''. ' 5 l'-,.. ' iv',pi" .'; "-, :I\,•,..- !A.-'' ,' ,'',-;,(••-'; r.. k \ ',.-';\-.....-,-, A.". ';‘,z,,,,,,,,, ...,, , . „.. , •-.;.,1;'-',.': „ • ,"' •-,...., . ...,i, ._,.._:,',1, .. 7-•-'-' - . ., • , • ' -' '1; i'•-■,1 1•1!, , ,,•.-1, ,,,: Z:. : -' ,, ,, 7...i i-...,.."." • • ' i "1 4 ''',.•-::•fi 1 r .j;. ‘..,''1!'1,_.-,. , . '..:-.": , ..,7‘, - ' •i -,.1;', ' 1111:''''''''' . ••:, '. , - . ;: :;1 ,i!i\ -q-—-:-.• . •i ,. ‘.. ‘...-: z:-c....1 .. . —'-,---i : • ---- .-,-,,--..!.-- -, --il V:p: .. r; ; ! ., -16 I • 13_ .. C.,, '','• r• t.," ., . • • ; - --• i "• 1, ',r __,, , , - ' ''. - •- ..,. •,,1, , :i , _ ''.-7 • .. ,. {, . . -, , , -, ;.,'‘. <, - iii''• ),1,i; . N, , 1' i 1.. '' ••-;::,'• • 1•4': 1••"1 . t : ' 1 •'' 4- :r1i:34:1' -'‘i•-- : ' •, ,... ":-,;: -,,,s1:.44 ••• — -::,, , ;11_, 3,•'.!ye-4.'1'; '11••r • , . t•rri I •,1 itri,_ •?-1F•'--.-; "- • • - - ,• • ' -- -••••,T•r1•:i'••••_______ ' ' . ,• -, 1 •••••,1 1 1.',,,•4------- •-• - ',i' ' , •• 1,, . • ." 1:.'q l';}!1:::,; - -- 2 , - i'l,::.:(16;•- - - ,. ,i ',i i.,;‘,,,,,,t .; il; \,:\ ,t , • „,_ . "'II." .7 -4,1/i,.• 'y; . . • . . ": ' ''!,)•:.\e-s-',"1'Ir‘k,..,;..!,_ . . ] :' • ,' ,-------- . - . -...'... 7i-1, /3.-;f.F•'i'ff'Hfr!' — --":-....--7,, , ••.' ' ' .•.7/ ••••'' !:, ' • \ idte I:: 4:1-4 - ... i-:ili ' :i , ,,...y.?!.... 1 i i:,i.: 111- •-•45, . , :•'•!:'"::'„,...,71:r1-• \ • ' ,.1,,i :: ,' ? 1 ir Viiii.-• , •' i•' ••--7t-;:'' ••••••-,-<•-''' •"••••••--••--,- -- • -',-;;-!, :-r•-2i'T.0 -- - • • i' 'r'•i:iii•rf, ... : V • • 1 j',,,.:' , .,••'. ••• /. --.• r 4••••'-": ,r., • • i':.• < ; 1 1 • • - • • • r 1 141i; - • , , ' ..-; , ' —''.. •V i i:gtiti.. :.. : . . ..,..Z.:-.-`7...•......,-;=,,‘,..., • , ... ...„ —. ..!-11'; •■ ' - ' ",. , •'''' ""! 1 1 ',I.Ir' .:-.•. —_,,,;,; , ;:„.•_.:._•..,:.,..,..,, ..11,,,11, ., , • , : ..,, , ,:...,: ......., , ..,......... .±.•,: :ficill?,„ ,. , �y " -',—,' .<_ l `<'�.1 ''`r.-'� - -- - , ; ,"fir • ` {' •...-"" �i •A• ) �.\.\.. J fi\ r C f ® j"_r°s . / ��/ SFr \r, �� mil. 4.+ �,•_� ��t ' r �r• y/ } ' �� (le,;''§.' : Jed' + ' !�,` \ .....,../,..:;-„„,,,,,;,-„,. � ,! yam`� r 'w' C � °.Y • IA ,. :•':: ,.-..-',: ;:::.--..-.,--,.,"-",. '1 .:;•-)x--,-/,;( - -°-'14---- .____•:.-,.,-,-- --0 \ \ , •--11 : /--.i:-.-/;:,:;',',.:--:. ' ..'•: r-1 . 1' f _ r fSf ,'I -' 19�y.._N. S y II " J ` k "-- 1 a-i 9 tss�e ` i i.'''''; t 1,.9t.'7 '.....'' KI 1 1• • Y - ht P Iv } �� it / , 1;1 � (/I } 's-'..;,1,:-- 1 A.l� F ' { I j .`\ .r-` h k ,I , ,•IL { 1 r LI to { k. 9 !ll��I i ; -..s. : ' , : -,,,, • -; : ,,,: 1 ".1 li t ■ ;1 ! r "y S• I •1•, °-,' : } : 1� 1 ' l ► . { - , 1y,! , „ ____Ai 3 : '-t'' \J ' t �[ I Eu It' 1 '•S LEI b� , T,: _ any v---',1 r _J �� �i.,. s5 rzh�•i i! F.: M�,. pn1 t --�:! '� { N, , 1 — s 1 s\. 31 ;1 rh I _. 1, x n „ SUPPLEMENTAl.. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL. 4N4 s_,,,:.-.,..:„..:._;., .z.-_'..1.-. _f..:i4.-„---:‘;.;,:-Z,.:rr3.. ge 2:' .--tom, IMPACT STATEMENT -- -7,=M-; } 3„tM. �',:2:-..,:',:..,-..--f,r_.i.---.:.'_,a"..,-..k!...r,,)'e,0'4.?:..._4Y`..,."„4 _ . ..._ --AND DRAFT SECTION 4(F) E\/AL�JATI NS4 for the ._ a k a Z36/ST T : , .. � � '1 Y Kr 'R,,% x -, - 5 S 'mot.-�,- `::. -'- ,a a 0 RIVER e ,.,..„,,,,.:,,,:,,,..„.. _ .__ _. _. , . . _ _ ._ , _._. . . „. _ _ . ..., - ,____„.,.,4 r ., . a 4.K_ a-fir. .mac:-,-y ` ;' -� 9 �� xr zh t�� , t - .s,; _4 a 1 w fi max- - � : `�' � � �� t •j G-s _ ® 5 �' --� � � © IR .. ' -1—.'4T::: �^ .i' 5 ten+ r - f E - �� �s '•3 C�J ° t - r 1 ' ' • 0 II , 0 = 18 v) R' (D U, (n CD iir. , 5' cct = . • < ' rn■ 7"1,-,-,,,:it 41 .,'`k?..".",,:..12, 2 :°,,' ii 8 z , • ...m.spicok , 0 .i. i - II 74 I at-of NORELLAVE11,?' -r WASHINGTON AVE 1 L C • iti 0 11 Pi 1,if„,-.,,;..--•- 1 t1111 It!. 0.4.1CGRElisT, '.0,04.,'"I'f..14•1j41 Awl. t VI*,`..T.:",.‘,..-1,+ „_ - „„rn „0"-4 ,' j 1 g ''''' ■"'—‘,•, „n 111 r- of; ,21.1'IA k2,_, a .1,$',I in- _ • ':,...., ■Ri.ill , OSGOOD AVE. , " r..„.,"-Ti 11,41, =4 =-1 - r•OSGOOD AVE. .. .4.-4i 1-1)F011 1 m.,..-, ,. t , lt'',.,J.,,,' 4 ....i.' t•-•,,, .,, ..„, ii*",.....,,,?, At, -,41.,. ''''• ,—;',...- '" t"i.:e.- ' ' - .,V „' z ils, ''''''1., 1), :-., .' -.) .... - l'+''At'. , 'I AL, ,,,,,,. .._ ..„- =f#41),,„•.. .....":--7,. d ''. Ji .,._ t t ,i .,c):."'?" i ,S....„:, ,„ ''''.1 * s1 / `'' r. , :, -----.; '"•-- `. .1-lit*---- ic- /7.41147 1. -i: 'Sit' ' • , ,.//: q\ ' ;' 0 44! ,..''40g's1 ' ■4 4. _ , 0 2°111 Sr. :: 4:70":!1!.1:!.:{7.4,-:: I 0, 444 %PL.' ' ' 44 o --, ii; s.,-(4' , 104f- 1 V7., rz, 7 , '''''Jj'A'' 'i..-'.,' i ,=,,,,e0,.1,44.I" __. ,A• .,,,,','‘ fi.,1,, 7, , - .- . • ..,--, -, . ,,, ,.. ,, ,, ,. . 3 .. , ,,... ,,...... ....,,,,., , . . . , ,, ...., . . , . ,... .._ . . . ..., . ,„, .,.. ,... . .., ,. . . ..._ . . , . .. .... .. . .. ,.. _,...... .. .., ... . . , , . ,,, ._ . ... . ,... _ . . . ,_ .., . .. ,, ,.• .., . ...•., . ,, . . ...„. . .... _, • . ____ ,.. . , . _ 3 1 .., ,' i.' 3.,, ., J TH 36 Corridor Management Plan 1 ii 1 May 2001 J 3,,,"„ Mo ''L J 't " M e to 3 In €rr€gional Corridors T. 3 . • TH 36 Corridor Managem ant Plan I e , }i 0 wl isL V 431 " E '�\ �e ` cue, L� a ,� Grant _ e L9S � �� . ahtomedi ti �`. °' �� � K 4Y Ice YY f`� 244 G�J t $til .t:%)' � kris" m I ao Elf �•� s - g e ® i I' .a a -�.1. ® lam®®®A p�'�t ..`,. �'�NIT '°�- 1 x � mow`�, � �' � � f�� � -'11 � � ���� �� �, .°ly �`�� ^,. s '� :,4_„, ,,,,. ���I li ton Keats ? l�Iaruun melt! r�I /'' iCIn 1 '> Avenue Lake Elmo yak Park ?��� $ (� • Are, Avenue , 3i4 Arts _ l . 0 Area Area Area ��®®.„,,,,,„,..,,, Improvements Include: Improvementslndude• ��' Improvements Includest EF-MEI CEE �,.- •.,:, ri ., ..s • °ems Improvementslndude: •IakeElmoAvenue in0ectiorlCapaat � 5�7y tag .: • Ov 1© Impmvem¢nts 5 ����y� � to,'.__:s •Hiltmt Trait Interchange . Keals Avenue Avenu '- Supporting Brri.'�t` . = 1,t • I •HiltonTras7Pronfa a �` Ri/RO — S$ g S Roadwa � Pse�ems/ -N ® _. Road Connection 's •Access Managematt uPP 'hn8 Y ',xis �r:.* Connckhwss ::�� -47'.."/ I --I -- 'Highlands ilInt Interchange .:., ' 1 Management a OOv pypassffo H eS' A;l ' 9 � •a4r.. •OeMontrevdleTrasl ���:3:a'a�,w. LI ass • •Ivlamfat] sEng 36; B T. °p - •AoxssIvfanagement it for ...�V „i I36 •Access Ivtanagemeitt x A�lv ana � ® `9.,Iii, _ 5 Cost$9S l�fiilion Cost$13 Million Cost$30.5 Million- Cost$23.0 hlilho� k vs,„ I B/C=3.04 with New B/C=182 wit.1:-• C { r• .. &C analysis is not relevant .. B/C.2'5 with New i. i .1;j 1. � s ifr SCAC at this level of study SCRC BJCanal uth/ :is - #� r, B/C=1.97 without due to minor nature of �' notvayyLss ue td min - ' il n la) New SCRC improvements B/C=223 without nature of ipipmveilnw' 2� s'ry. New SChC G3 signals mvT 's , Recommended Regardless Recommended Regardless Recommended Re ardless �' Improvements Vary k. of SCRC Tteatment -� of SCRC Treatment 8 Dependent Upon SCRC - '+ of SCRC'Beatment 'Reakmem I ' 7r z ILa.1 A a a T.�, '6 ..: _ - Note:availabledata/fo asls. 'ta'"ri k a'1i7 ;:::,:144..14.7_:.,� .;•0 sa 17 based ueort yy r.�: e �'e , s -.,.;,:::174;‘-ft '' Sunfish X detemuuxyl �`+, xi U k4s ma 3 ., Lake t • ©® constraads end �� �'.+,fr'' Paving Minnesota g ' ° 1e a Hy d ro ,, TH 36 Corridor Mana ement Plan r Implementaho t Ian` =N ' x ,, fax'i t f l 4 3 May 2001 . 1 . ..-„, .-,. j . 3 TH 36 Corridor Management Plan 1.0 Introduction/Report Purpose :3 The purpose of this TH 36 Corridor Management Plan is to document the study process and key outcomes of the combined TH 36 Subarea/Interregional Corridor (IRC) Study. Key elements of the study process include the identification of a study area purpose and need and a corridor vision based on study participant input and relevant factors that led to the identification of a recommended TH 36 improvement alternatives. This study provides a blueprint/vision for responsible agencies to. utilize in addressing safety and mobility needs of the study area over time. It is only through the commitment of all responsible agencies ] that the recommendations of this study can be realized. . 2.0 Background g ound j , TH 36 is a principal arterial roadway facility that provides an essential connection between the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and the St. r__ - Croix River Valley, including the City of Stillwater and Western Wisconsin. The roadway serves adjacent communities of Oak Park 61 - Heights, Stillwater' Grant,.Lake Elmo, Mahtomedi, Willernie, Pine Springs, and Oakdale. TH 36 carries a high volume, of commuter I traffic, as well as recreational/tourist traffic destined for the St. Croix Valley. The corridor also serves as a linkage for the movement of pz- goods and services between the Stillwater area and the remainder of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area K re- 2.1 TH 36 Subarea/IRC Study Evolution Washington County initiated the TH 36 Subarea Study in the spring of 1999 based on Mn/DOT's management investment strategy for the TH 36 Corridor and recognized roadway system deficiencies in the TH 36 travel shed through Washington County. Recognized deficiencies included the lack of north-south roadway connectivity, the potential c-1 , r).__ ; Pag: 1 4 14. Construct interchange at CSAH 15 (Manning Avenue). 15. Construct grade separation at CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue). I 4 16. Limit Keats Avenue full access to TH 36 to right-in/right-out or 3/4 4 movements (no left out). This should not occur until item 15 is in place. 17. Continue to build support roadways in conjunction with land development and to support the interchange at CSAH 15 (Manning Avenue), as well as the grade separation at CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo z Avenue). " 18. Conduct an IRC Partnership Study of TH 36 through Oak Park Heights. Recently, this portion of TH 36 received a grant under the IRC Partnership Study Program. This study will be a joint effort between Mn/DOT, Washington County, Stillwater, and Oak Park Heights to analyze in greater detail the local connections onto TH 36. The study will consider local land uses (existing and planned), P ) safety, traffic flow patterns, and access issues. The study will use the Hybrid "A" and Hybrid "B" conceptual improvements as a starting point and will evaluate the need for interchange and signalized access treatments along TH 36. The.study is expected to start in May 2001 and be concluded by April 2002. 10.5 Conceptual Cost Estimates • As shown in Figure 2, conceptual level construction cost estimates and benefit-cost analyses have been conducted for the four improvement areas identified in Figure 2. These estimates are intended to give a relative indication of the value of the improvements to the transportation system and are'not intended as a definitive estimate of construction cost. With benefit-cost results ranging from 1.82 to 3.04, ! _... the analyses do indicate that the implementation plan would provide attractive improvements to safety and mobility in the study area. 11.0 Subarea Issues As the improvement concepts evolved, it became apparent that emphasis should be placed on two areas for subarea roadways: • 1. Consideration of Mn/DOT Access Management Guidelines by all responsible agencies. Access Management Guidelines should be considered for all new land development/redevelopment and in all roadway construction/reconstruction projects in the subarea. a., 2. Consider reclassifications of access categories for subarea system roadways that will change function with implementation of the preferred TH 36 Corridor Management Plan. u f TH 36 Corridor Management Plan - Minnesota Department of Transportation Page f_ 1 - /1 1 ,i, TH 3 6 PARTNERSHIP STUDY f� FINAL REPORT Prepared for MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 r tl ■ s� -._J �-•mss, ..vim . mss ' r ' �} = - .ry '�' g' U-` ,� - In Partnership with , CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS f CITY OF STILLWATER / " h ' 1 WASHINGTON C JNTY ;r Prepared by 1 ScONSULTING GROUP, INC . DECEMBER 2002 . • , , r. . 1 Ln 0 x o O v, !� 2 C N a vs 0 a. s N L 73 a- tia 03 a. I VI s. el A = O '• 3 W CM tn O • ai R W Cr SX-it i v) 0 - i a000so Q Z a000so C Q CM 1/4O a W 4. p U _ C O - 0 • L a C A3133N9 QJ N N N33i19�110 . i Q Q -a _ CU W s 'p O V = o z Z R Q. a NOIONIHSVM . { Q I A -� -0 113210N Cr)aI f 1•1 •= '� CU `n c ns S o c y c s [C O Q 0 ate, a, > . a �lI i.L T M •— w i ° zi c a I F- L a of v m -, _ oc > _ Q O u� E a 2 Q O F- C 0 al a1 • I O :� a�4, F-- 4-, • C o t % k W I ------ _ i ` : t' 4` '$" '4:- ##'&d am _#,74_- V- 41.07-,---00:10--- d[c_ _ �i x 1, , r N a) x ) . . i u c F Z O 40 `�"' in . A 0 C .• c •... 4., • Ir {iii W r rn •••�•r ■ ■ .t a. ; ' W t O C = i ►> 1,,,,,,.. •a ° kik Q t;., 'I - W C 000950 • 400950 R v -0 J . C O Q } rO F. 3 p 0. O a. o V LLI O > .0 A313389 V 4! a•+ RQ- N N3389)IHO ..E..,1 0) H o •� i. 0) N D. II W ; 7:3� m NO19NIHSVM V 4' _ = LO O O .., 11380N O : 4J rna, H O V . Ti '� z > = rn I O 43 Q •. ra O Q o s L a b- V U p a ti �. l.1 s- {/) kp N 0 v m c v 7-1 I_IX DI,,,,i.V-Jt :: .,,, Z = M O ....> -0 w o ,2 z z a, O _,E ,- C O N 41 6 a o p l7 y m O O p NM Ea � ao> � L .y = � u � ac 1 : 0 .. ..z.;.-.. ; -, . mc .L' Q Q O 0 11 W i ) . 1 F=— x 5+ ct it 0 vi In L. in • • • • M 0 0 La • 111 ila ILI CA ] "0 in • a1.. 1. a) i. Z ;.r. 'a a) : W H 000950 400950 a CD 22 H Ow H p W a = o a z 1 A31331:19 H •C N • N33H9Nd0 N d' w i . Eli Q O u H = CI +' of 3 W E R o I C u - cu ;' Z I. al N019NINSVM %,„„,,......011E441‘...........• CA CD C 1:31 1 0 M IQ t) 73 113a0N N b V /wL��.. Tc� o O i j -a U U 1 1 CL 1 : 0 : 1` .F N -r- 3 a. __„„b) 2 o in \-01 z -: Q 0 - o CC I 3 Tr Lo ° M 01 • All • • rn _>•fa • • :'r 2 F C a1 N GU hi N W GOO9SO 00050 MN cc L V limm O O • o 4_,)�— 0 2 ,L oo c L.1 1- > 13 ,C A3133219 . „,..,,.. ..,... Ou c� N33>i9�110 0 .,E..,, A .c C 0 ra • a - 13 as V ° '' C L �J N019NIHSVM Z 0 a ea -O 113HON a,a� I. ;„j; o '' C ,N 13 Z N c rn � m R as O QJ :: , Iv Q u Z I1Hi a - N S. a) ` t a m Q O =I- fu' L ,13 ✓ • • . •.. "a V N • ye - = _.) HI I x ) 4. tn U CL vr s V1 C • a CI • M • CV •• A VI S ■■■■ W 0 � • • �' Y its "C3 •O • i v = W OOODS° , aOODSO Q VI o a'N c. W o -0 U .C—c° in Z C .0 O 0 - > A c a) C A313389 4, O 't 1 N338 9NVO raj . ki \ tn W i .Q N - I— W'a 2 N "a cn ra i CI- i:,-4- U _ a o Q Z i'■ N iJ NOIDNIHSVM ' ` O 1138ON c rn • Z U •j R V N ..+ a1 'o o -v : � O �_ > 2 • Q � �V _Q �' fp cu CA +° CC a) ro V > �- -'4'-1 Z c 3 0, w Q "3 E w c o a,2 ;; tn Q LL - = M M 0 N W p �_ m a 2 > 3 . N • + to I). O M a 4 0 2 F • 3 (. ,.... x 'G 3 . ;._„:: =V N k N a s :, m rn W FF( y._ i fa a v1 • M CO B ■ 1 0 0 t + ri 1 0 r. i = a) O F- Np aoo9so aoo9so Q v, 4-' • 11 1_ Ow ,,11 j s LN !i _ +_, V i O D z ' 0 c 0 Z o -a V Ti 12 M i •= N O E- • A 133UO s ICI > � � N ' El 33219)1V0 0 O +a [a >CU t LL 0 C to 6 L-: 2 (V ) . o. O -_o � o � . '� V R o z N o i Q. 0 NOIDNIHSVM 113HON a'a 0 cn A -c3 `a -Q c at c O o c . cc Lv �,a-, O = cc . c ° a> -t !iiifli ( ■ 7 , O Z3 V o > - Ww 3 a • • • • M i _ J 0:-W.",:•.'".' x al z O ) . u *+ i 1. N D. H cii O o L • . O. Ill • to ,n ■ .aC O LLI V Q . >+ N M II a009S0 0009S0 F— }.- C a _,; . a,, 4. W to o 0 0 V t+- ..0 Z i = C N N - .° a U G7 L u u +. u u j ei, DI j ,� = • .13133x9 rr 4 00 C �. - N33a9MVO .�.� tQ V 7 O V O O O aJ -0 .II C I- la a aJ O t as u _ Y .13 .1/4' , co Au ,, 4 O 72 Z7 I- 5 C 4-,V •0 L fQ ITS RI -..- Z 1 Q V O -O N 113a0N o. • C . � K_-u V / _ SS N f0 fa a O • +� O to L- Cl Al o. w d c a Iflhiiii • v, Q w 1— O "�am` Dm •• ••. •• •• •• •• •- • M -.r. .._. ,„I . 1 ...,... / „,, , ,., 1 5 i s ,, o 46 w' �J W d O 0 0 W ^ L 70 y O 7 4 \ R rii V1 CI k u1 L L Q to O� CU ID 0..........40.00. 7,0 fu L L. = L 1 I- I a M ell CU f1:1 CU a� a 1 3 L • CU i V 00� Am 2 11 i C Ma ca Z 0 J g C O N O •= aooOSO aooOSO CC c c, d 1 1 •ea ( o 4.....� ° // W • a — O Li_ te += 11 1 115 0 � a • tJ. , c LL ▪O C , a ! I L Q A3133UD k a'ti N33NO)1VO ff„„,,,i --, pm > :321 ) /, RS C 'a OV 2 p v� O o C v W -a E co c; c -'"V O .5 LO +. W• NOIONIHSVM ii Q O 113210N II ® O p V crn N c RI V ii x , c v v- d a,_ a Z R o 3 z w .O u. ZC c y tLL v m m v i _ I in lc 1▪ V Vl Q y H V 2 > C l7)) 1 'T. ' ..' ( (AII i ElRecommendations: 1. Existing frontage road conditions and poor geometries discourage use of the frontage road system, placing more traffic on TH 36. Regardless of decisions about the ultimate concept for TH 36, short-term improvements should be implemented prior to 2010. Short-term improvements should anticipate future roadway improvements to minimize repeated 0 disruption of businesses and land uses in the area. 2. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the corridor should be improved regardless of which roadway concept is selected. If a safe crossing cannot be provided via roadway connections, then a pedestrian/bicycle bridge should be considered. 3. Proposed roadway improvements should include aesthetic treatments appropriate to the character of the surrounding area including lighting, landscaping, bridge and retaining wall treatments and pavement selections. 1 4. A grade-separated facility with two interchanges and maximum speed of 45 mph should be considered as the ultimate solution for the corridor to provide adequate capacity and acceptable levels of operations. However, design of this facility should seek to minimize its impact on the surrounding communities through sensitive choices of horizontal alignment, vertical placement and aesthetically pleasing treatments., The design should seek to �,;M minimize business takings and to explore opportunities where mutually-agreed upon sale of ,i property or relocations of businesses can occur. 5. Following completion of preliminary design, Mn/DOT and the cities of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater should explore options for preserving right-of-way and minimizing future land use impacts through official mapping or some other mutually-agreed upon mechanism r..F by December 31,2003. 6. The study partners should continue to work with Mn/DOT through the preliminary design process to address the above concerns, and, through a cooperative process, develop a II roadway improvement package acceptable to all parties by December 31, 2003. 7. Transportation alternatives (e.g. Light Rail Transit, or bus hub) should be examined as part of future Mn/DOT planning for the area. ril Next Steps itThese recommendations will be presented to the Oak Park Heights Planning Commission and City Council, the Stillwater Planning Commission and City Council, and the Washington County Board for adoption. The resulting recommendations provide the conceptual framework for development of preliminary engineering layouts for the study corridor by Mn/DOT and consideration of staging for the proposed future improvements in the development of the St. Croix River Crossing or future projects in the area. i . j ■ ' - - • - . • -.• - -.-... -''''...;.-'-'::::,;-.-:',,. •--11 zi,Y.tvv--- - -ax*ww"•:A"'•-''',.-."'4••1, ,;`,.,-•,.:.4•11-''':,k7:4414";.7-1'-',-, • AZAredb. '. .:.:r.-.'14'-....4•Aix,11V6"..:',.-"-40.e ..,.f.c44•Ii'-. :-... '.::..";;;--,'..:::,:.-..-••,...;,,'••.-.•-- ""- 'P. - • I ,.' ,,....,i..3s.•"'ika?-•:::r 4!7;4A,i.;::':;;,.;:i4.:.T;,:,12...:..r-....:.:'.a-.;,..1.,14:!f'1.i:„.1.1iR.=-.'.;..*,4,:4:1ii-ri-•:•1.-1-'1-'3`4`':!•1,,.0AT.J,6I.-:.i4;i-;;•7;I36 4,r:V1 1,fAel.i•il.-v-fe.i;#:i"!,,•-'';''.f..'i.'‘'.,,,-•.,1.a-•.'4A---t5..,„4'w1.:.,;4.A.1..1,.,6.':.;°'''T4.y.3L`.:;4,,'5›.4"...i.,,.:-:--';44'''.11...0i 1:1i-.-'.?.k41A-54ti.-,.:4?*;'.!i..ii.g li-5Il,e,e.l:'.'.'V.:,:.„ ):,....1 . .4.,...‘ . l1:11:)i-nl'.. e.:f.'ei‘..-5:41..,"`Nt,:5.Y•W`.!-'*: -..0.-.:1A1*A7i.44,'..:'.,:•::;?-:7;.1it.%...:44.:, . ...-‘ e'f'i'..44.1.',.g_:;.',..,yaVilll'il,,.-,-;AliEtA",t;;;XE-10:1-;-:;f•c.i.?:11-,zPil4ei.figti:5-tg..'-:;t71..ti.i - . - '7::.S...;;!-A-!..,;;;VVi?'.--:':,.;:"-ag'',Zt'.Q..':'33:4:;;',i.7..-z.-:.:-;.-'.!;....11-''. ':..",--',. '' `;'::.,.-:'.-).A:,.'..,''''.0f-t'..t-ci'-',,,Vilt_z_-4--',:t...F.rticALAY."..-f.‘-i.4.'..'...1.?...-:',..,.... :'s:ti.s..-g--4..,'.1flite2.1.!.'W...;:Pi4-iier:;.....i...:'.11.......'-:;--',ci';'.-si40114)-11.,', ? - - --.3.?..,„z.„:445'.',.,,..:i'--.,,L.t.,l'"2:4'.i.A,ig...1t.:.3:..f.x,-;!.4:: g....?:,: :,,s.. ,,x,Z,*.V„;:.-2.,;;;3,.i ,;:::ii6,1.41.4.sfivig.:;.;e;zc:a.. 1 ...: rq,•4,.,,iri. ,: :::',FgAT;ett:ei:`,%.::::::i.1.1.:i...et:Is .,...t.1...1::::,i,,.;.i.j;1;.:r.;E:i7,::.,-..;::.e,11-,:.t.v3k!;:?.,f...z,,,...::::rig...p4e,f.--5:',. .. . .. -...: :.:.2....,..;=. .::. :L.,:...,_v::isie,.....-;,.....,i4.1::ti..4,,y4,....,,,..4,::,;.5..:.,4,..sla-.:,..,„...-„.„:,-,,,ith.-.1....2.=-::4,4z -,-,e011..-4i.. -..sn".c75,1:7FLr..-A115:;!..1:70.4-1It • .•-•- '.- -... •-'' — - ',rel.,..-"*, .:::::.:.-1.'',4,20:Altr4 4.,3.,k__:."''''..F.T:"Ti.i..7.',.7..,.:i:r44.i.4--:•=.;". . .51. .,..3:e..,..1.41f4 .-...---.7.....,j,ilit ..Z.:,',.,1.1":::.,...',... .-0.:F.;,.-A-k.„ ---'-:. 'I,`41,71:.V:•4..17j.....'wt-g7ti•;1;if:44.E7!,*, ii&t71.1:41\4:,:r.v:..-tsf;',..5Z-.4:5,• -->13::3::-.....t.k.,,,,:-!.1-;;;.,:.;:!;,;::',ffzxtt.:.:;,4-z,;....z.q..:...!!›,;;;I: . . •. .r.. ,-„.:.......,..,:; '' '..t."4-•':•2:::1"."•,..ks*g7,8.',?. .4.4c0',;-*.•*zi."it'in•iAv.it'14.r.r.tr.,:fit.":4.'21:1:7,:*:.3.54;111 .i.'45.4-?,! ::.!:::`,•-'1,;:i..40..°)-2^,c1.::!..:;,e-1/1 . .•-..,-, .-,...-..-..„.-.! fl ?:.' ,s.,:,!...,tf,..tv.:.f.f.,,,117,..„44.,27;i1s4,1„11.,.,,:rf:i1:52.4-.,,,1„4.0k,....,,,..,•,,.:,...4.x.1_,,,y;v..e.c........2..„.....4=e,.........L:...-_.-.:_..._,...-......:.,.i...3.30.;:t.i.......e.i.A.-,wri.„. ...:.......,,,:7...........;::.,., . ....: - '',1`4".17' -are'.4(7: - • • 1:4:7.1:4;tig'..1,itti-YZ.,•iU . - ' --. ..,:,•,....--..i.:---''.-.;;. e .....1 n a 1 ....,.. ,. „.,. . .. . . . .., .. .. .._. ,,,,:..,„,,.,,‘„,,„. . :•:„.........,........„....„.„:„ I • . . . _ Hnien • • :,.,:,:„:„.:.,„„.„. -- . : ... . ,.....:::: . . • ...,..,•_.,..._,,,..... ,,...........,..„..:,..,.,, „,„„:„.. . .=•:_.-:-..-.„--_,,,:-•:.•,=-.---.•:-, _ ---:- - • : '.. -• 'i ':..4,, . . .• ., --- .•. "-----E;::-i•T.- '.6.4-*:4-i'-t-71-k.-":'•-•''r'-:",_-..:•••::'•;.r• - ,i7.477,77''17''17"'tr*.'7-7-:_-_, . 1,- ''''.A -.:,,',- .•- .1-:_-.i -i-----, ;,:•-•(j ,--'1,--".:', 2, ,-.-,--,,--- ',7----.:----j i a 2 ''',,--'.: . ' - ' * l'-' , ( () -') I I I .(1 j. .--) ; . - 1,-.- - ', , , , ,•,_:_q_a,., _ _,. 4... I A ,..;...: - : ;1.:._,- . ' . : :-'-'--;=i- --..i--,,--, -7...i.'..-:-.....- - i'..-.--.".".::.---2';-;.....i.--.7.-...-;-:-::::::::7.!-'.'-- 4---. 1 '-.;;-(- P- .0,0e-As--.----.--'•-..-.• '. -- • ....- •1,-,..'-- :-,. - - - .- - . '.--- --.-...'- —, -.5-.?-- '.'-'-.-2.- -.--'- ---.' --..:, -- --..-----.-.--”. s:-.,.. '-. -',..71'd."'.,."P•'::. , 411, 'ailti'•-•ir•.. ---:•:• -•. - .-•'-.-1.:.---- -..--.- . - ''---- '--..--: 'ss.• -..-• ..• .- --••••-• .7. -.-4••••- -2---7.•'4•17.--..:1:.;.;,,,_......S.1-••.•.._-,..,'....•:_'::....:.' Vi t_ .. -`4".;-. ...::..i4ie:.;,!.. ..„'!..,....' • --,-.---•--.----•-:----•-::-::-.. . - •.--' ,;7:--• .:•--- ' -''-''-'."'.- -- • ' - --- -•-.7: .'•'''.--- .. .- ..-7:-...----,....i : ; ''. ':I.::'.-..-- --"?....',6e$1.5....:.'..., /..- . -. . .. . - ;,.!, -.. . •-•-'.-.'"'N..--.-- ..'-12..':V"1::1: , . ., . . . .... : . . .. . - ... - - . .. . ,. ..... ,. „ - - - - - • - ,...- . . . , . . • '''.- -'.41...: ......'1':,., . ,_ : . -' '-'-- ..... r:...01.,_. , ..... . . _......_„_.....___.... - v r . .. _. :• . . .. :. L _ .. _ . . • .. . ... .. . . . . . . . .. . . . ... ,.. •_.... ,, , .•_, • . . . ._ .. . . • . .:-• - " -- • .s.- •-tw------ ro 51n c • Trunk RighWay 36,Washington County,Minnesota ,..:., .. . .. ....... , i .,-„,,' , ... •---- ?,,,,. , _-_-,, -.4 ..,..... • , - • . - •- -.- - -• . - .,.:',;-...E.... '.....• ..... . -;,... i '..--- ' lr,''''-L.'--*:-.- ' ', :-.-- - „:;,--:‘,-_-State Truhxy,1-1 ighvvay 64,St Croix County,Wisconsin . •,,-.}.....,•:::,..3.. .• ._.•• . ,..-., 1 L,; • -- ,----. .4 .- . : .' '.'• _ .-...' . .-:'?„. 1'''-.::,:;---' t.,-;:'-.'•N'..,...'."..tgi 1 . :. .‘• . ' ' ' .;;-....,.7,.....; :...i.:,;',....,....s.. -- : . 4:- ..,,,,,...!,. Le _-'-: • - — .. 4*. • .r;;;;..-: -,.%•;."‘`>:.......% ..4-' ' •". . ' . ' . . . -.::3 .!' , e.4„ ,.. .4,, •' 11.4 ..-,f-.,- - 'V -'-'4'''''"W1/4. , ! ..-'. --: 4,;, =,'..,!_41.- --.RI. i.-',..,..140 - iv-----'.'``.-.','-' 'IR - ' * • . . . ' . .,1 .z,f , I;1,5774r.': 7,'`---.' '''' '.- :-...'; : - -W-'''Marc.h.200 :4-L.' .•,,,,':.. - ' I , . . ,.! 1 1 ., -.- , ' ...— . ...' -',....- .--„„: . ,-,....., • - • . - - ., _ •._-, ,.. - - ..,:„.„- ', - ...rst:,..,- ; 'T.• .,,, ' 1• 3VT-e.'', '''. •''.. -• r.' • •'-; 4.14}4' 1"--R1.,4'.`11111P • • - • ••4 -•-• ,:-xi , ..,, •,._- _A- _ , .:.,-',,..„,.‘.-0;--,...,,;.-..„ . ._%!' . ,,,,.1 ..r,ft,. ,, 1f,-. . . /... :....... , . . %. . , k'l .".--, , . ' . .--",e V„ig, e . /2 , *Iih - '' •s . 1-*1., -_ --:•-•=t245;- '',-. - - ••••,1, --..1- . . . 1 - '.:':.\ . li'lt'`..-: -'t-.S...s•-•• •-•••'.• . "I ,.., ''.*•1)1.:;,-;:r•V., --,-,1 ita:•_:,•-:•,',' .;(...".*''''':'''''''- .. '• Oti— ' ',--- ..,#, • -• ' .,--ir ' .. -, - - .-, ,-;;-._ .,,_ k• -i' '‘i..\.r.l t;7',‘., '''ii.:4 1 ;::',........1.... . -->f,j.,-,‘<ii...;:':.';.'•,4, ' ..•!:••‘.4*-'.-V; ‘ ' . , $ '.1 r '' r•. '''• . '''',. . .'''. . t ' -0 A: • -,.,,'-: *V2- ' 5.L.•,..,7_,,.:' .-'''-""*.?:i. ",-;;-;,.-.'-'.....t..•-•.'I .._'1% ..;• %,,, -1-,,,,„ ,;.1-'..' ' , '-'7.,-;', L"'C'''..Vt. SIT:7f';';:,t''' .";...zVP`i-'-'--.•;:',. .--. 4-=':$i '''rt.' 1 : 'i .1:fil'-':'-' • ' 3''...... . ' r 1.; ••••i . -* -•\ - . '',':- .•-,Y.-r •'--7.;•;•,;:---4 ,',.••;■71"1 1, -- X-,, •1 I:1 - ,I• ' -"--''',.;„,,, •-,l• ' . .' N'S N... 3-I . - ''---- - aft- - 7 -. . ...: '‘-- --:- ' - ' ' •.•••\-- --- '-i,:_,,.'!-2.! - ,_ _ . -';',- - ...: :".-,.. , /',--,`-."!-,',...,-.,..,. . 62 3 . '••:,:. 7 ' : •. .04, 8-1,,.....-._ .,„ i'l_.- -:- - -- - _ 4: -- - - - -';„cc-- ' .4;4 q, - , t --..,•:.-:,.- ' -i't I ' N ,• • - '' . '-' '': i'-',--- , • -'''w.,•,- .,' ..' -4,- 4 ' Minnesota Department of Transportation ..:-. ..-..:.-..•_.:, -.-.:..,:'1!.;. Wisconsin Department of Transportation -. _ ... i. .-....... ...-1.A Federal Highway Administration - - ........-....:-...-.:-..Ai ' _. - . ..-... .: .-..•,.. .‘:14, . ,_, . .:. ...„.....„... .:).:, . -. - .:.-:. .-.::.. t.'; :.,_, ,...,. 4,.',: ;•4::::".1?..;.: :";;:11:67ili.2'; ...f.'1..• -- ' ..'- -. • • -. - - - . -.:',-:4:::.F: -. . ' ''''',1•6'. LI a a� II 0 L.: 411, r- � pp cz cd cd al N v = > = 1 1,p c c c c Q., �t.i .-. .. .. a, .. a r _ Z AM — Q i ai 0. - li _ ■ $ O W VI _ ,� —VW I •• Ri s ii U 1.2 ft t 1) - - , cv as N �L ,.,®, O U- m _ d� cc O a x s f 0 Ad F=., y a ' iL 11 cn . ® $ � of C a� n°s ■ a,d p' r ^t r e k f p r- '3� 7► �.w^� A ' of �. .,«r' a' / QS Q `Y/ I ✓ J'S�'' ik a A y �... N L. Os it-rr. i s�P xz Iv' ,,, ;F . s�"f� b ..fit 1� � ^ 1 dot 1.6"j '.�s ; ri _I� f�t. r�i`w ':.�';�'�l Y ,�� w 1 149.1 _IN.! -+- v, i lq 'ft �,,' .�` "'ff .rp z`ff 3;+' 'r: ,'..�'.:�� .�� 7 i 1 Ili �,,.�?x';u w'f r 7 �x �.7 � Y 1 U ;SF"'' "`3 �" f `S1 F tg J L• f� c�al�s2' F a r r"�' r �I����r�� y -��® ®� :.. Ili i il! � _ co '""-°'111111111WilialarmillipOtillif 01-0.1.11MONNTIIIIII i 1 C 11 ,,.. - — 1111..10-11--11' -a., „......,- ,,,„...- , -I 4 0 It -- —11E-1.—.01 — .101:1-- iiiiim ,___ ::,_ _. _ .,, lui ' I°. -•••.• N .......1 Q w too ill Arm, NINIII Jra11 G•111 CU CI) ii IF: C ,1■■ O 14 I as ofa v M U c. Mrr C L� ; m.?"--: 111111:11-r, , 0, N, t.:::,- 112 . air_ ,, s „ , ,,=, ,z, I, „ ,,.„.4 4,,,,, Ir .,; i„,',,.. ,„1 , , ..i.,,,I,...[,,.,.,,1 ,,;,[7., ,,-7 i ,7,-..T.1 , —, ,rtr, tk —.„A ir ii. i 1 ,---■ I— c— ,---, c, ri 3 -, >4- 0 0 , 7c-- —• ED, < 0 0 Ea • .. • .3 .. -3•• % = . • 1 I E %! 1.0 -a 0) a oz, ti co- ITI ,, ›. ,.... 14,-; L•ra.'‘• a z,-, • y,, N Im _ t , Ill 4 g,■ 1 - % r.-4-,., ''' ,,I.p.-----71..."-- • ' I 4 - , f •134. M u 1 r- -- -- d 43,_ ' - f, I lli `ge II ' ti •.-t.'''' L'''="[ ""u•Avz L.'-'s- • 1X-Se WAENINGTON AV& I 1% DIL z CARMEN AV& , . -,--- - glA•i! 'F''' > GREELEY AVE WEAN ss) 11,11,42\i, H1 11 OSGOOD AVS.N. OSGOOD AVE N.(OMEN EN Id 14-11 11 4), I I .■11:074.-et5'''"P-1 qt t;;T ila=1 1" - ,, -' It-\,,. 4 1 _ I-) kfrj:11EVi2.-.4 '11v, 1- - _,.--,„.g.' 0,4•• A ,/ , .79' /It( • . ---1 IFY 1,W H 1,/ d / i c\\I 7,3",- ' ' " • -0g1111" 9. .., i - -) , r 1 3 HL, , m CI .. ..- gi -g* c) . 0 -a: ci ca. c, c c c ''s a lu I I p_ic9 a, .... ..?.. K% r 11.101.... ftlEtit.-,IlLt!it,-,.ILE=^,,,t="■t 11WeilliVINWrarlar"rting , ',. -'.-1 - I :,,,,,,-.14,,,q, Iiiiiiimi;,,,ininiill'■,',11,4064,i ;1, ,.; ,, ,j1.::1 ,4,, ,P- ,, ' ' ;; 4441., ,4-','4,,..,`' '1, ,,, ‘rq,-i V.-'i'I,:,,i'1,fr• '.ri , ; ,. nwod,waksw,.row•cArt....6860,_don ti 0, r- => 1 a -, 7o t• " -. -- CD < CD .,I• a 0 . , 0 .. a. Ca - .. ' *.o. • I--- 11,1 6 vl '-' NOE i ELL AVE.I.0-. 1 WASIONGTON AV IS I fiiii„, - tt w 1 4,1,01 IA , C ..stl is, 1 ltril 4. 0A1CGR3E""8. AVE.(.SAIL 68) it. i -... 1,411 -1 1 4.1 olk o .°96°°D AVE.".'aIRD.2.431-6 4±4 _ °scoop AvE.N.(00.50.54 -.:1-4 4 , .1 .....,,,o'... .-' 1 g P'— ,r,:l V41...:;=.",„....---•J. — II ,;- 4 tiET, ' -.‘ JT -„, 0 7--,,,fravAlii-T;,,■,.. ., , - 0 , . . . . ....‘ , . _. , ..... . " Ilk\ .,-( --11.'11Pill.'-pormylliir-74 t = - t r _a. ,;,-,-j-' l'i._.,!:."'-' , ," -,,,Aii , ,,,,■ill_ i ,' -"---c-'.ib■_.A1-1...,..4 Mgr' 1,-60 I , — - ,.,i.1 :=-!. •e",' r,„,„„,•-1,s4, o \t 44‘,'\' ''' # _ f r 1 ---1 T. ')'■\ , 1101 0 . . ,...' ' . 1 , . . 00 0 J 1 n 051.1 X 4 -i L-7• > 0 -.• i' . q,q:r-r;,•,'5,7R.,1', -. , , -igitl Alitgi 2 m 0 2 ' i > -•■Ci -`-,, m -.< . . 4.' 7 ''y, ---/y-.....:..:_- .:....-,.m c—°r. ------,,,,,i ,,-"r,—pp":=w*f,,. i.nFr✓,-,,,. snS PC ..v.,aft..0.0ttrr.......m.1 1.0.09n:.r•vU3Ciyr,GAZSEOf,:�ia1L'CO3A. OR a -. i 1.®d B t Yr', rii-t Ji 4 +d l.ei, 9.ta—• 'Li+06. .ww 4M ?awe' 'i liui it i"(l- ''�5wff x itt tk rl=`r 7011 l 12 ;, n E O 1 R. 7 Z7 lb N L n o Oa y :P.10 CO b. , i ' I E :'3 CD. Cp N � -. s /ti:. \ W ii }r-I I_ f• � II I�`- III a f NOREId.eVC it I,L gAEiDNOTON AVE. �IIIf 11;OAROREEN AVE."i� ". .'1 In 4.: I6 •"ns I GREELEY AVE.(CAUL ND C, OSGOOD AVE.N.(CO.RD.E4) j i 1 OSGOOD AVE.N.(CO.RD.SQ -�+-a I c' 6 r 4' I Fi '�te' I -1 4Yr�V I rtr ""sue J. i 1I 1 � v °�% r d,4_4 �'/ �.4. 14 IU gyl s`Al ` y�ge � S � ). _ a 6 , , i v , 1 , i, 1 r 0 ,,, t r z� n ' o S. a z m G T C E R.3, o 0 IMfE D f '. M o a c + 8 I F 1 , r s K tr �",s a r x. s z k. X j ,rt Y ,',i' w ` , ay i7.yx. "41: r i t j ;{ :%r . ' ti z5 us e � 311 T9M Y ' ` s i A...;..-' ,....,_ F , ` is ' , 8lea a -2 y 12e 41 F. s�� ? ea + xY' * v - x r� a. �, ,f��i 1 .� ';s > s u h' W _ ` � �.✓ • .• E4 ' k' k3iY�F � - s Ys� .t-„-,4 g� Y � .. r µ 0� �va 4� � �, g��S�ryd ,vr� �� . 1 F2t �F w f +�:� 1 a� � :$1 , �t 4.01141:44,,,,,f-NA-.-:§4-..,,..;t- ,'� e # l_ "'. � A" a i , t,J a'y k�W 1�,,+ *-A ' ' }r� .w,� -a '"s i=p-r E 2 1a- ' c e ' ...-- 3 � a.. .�3wk .� -9 s- qar:" a it: t Ek 5a,T�it do- .; , ,-" -" _ r' �x � '�v �• i-�, zc i {-g -Yx a a"" °$ _ ' s _! � g : ... ,,,,M act: tatemen �4 I _ _ __ _ _ --- - -" -= == ------ -'''' - -- _ _ _---- -,- _ : - - - - -----'7--..- ' - --.---- -' - --..___._,,. ;--;'',---:--'-':-;-1,;-'i.':-.>-,,.,_ -- ...,-;:-..--."-7-1.":.------7---rf, - ¢}m'S, 4 t çrsngj ` • T�°u�� i era 3 ashen to County,Minnesota -,.��� ,.• ` ,;t State e T°r�a� [ i ay 4, St� •Croix fount ,Wisconsin n E _• .r - {.-icy va yy ':lRd _ Y , .Y3, : _ ,�"., iii°-_ ..,. ,'s' '° `'` e 9 t -l - x - , 4 1: ,. ..___ -- - Minnesota Department ofTransportation Wisconsin Department of Transportation Federal HighwayAdministration • • w �M/fM�VM4 .Sfl M16 MNgI ! � � III A, v co 1: H • m ■t=wf 1I \ Y'{ 1 �, 1 \ ii �p}. l 0 '}1'11 u: •r ) ., ,.11` N i 1 1. m II m '- _ !' 1..ct ' i 11 ,, ,! 111 . ` / 'Ii b d II m � •.cw=C mIt ,{; rltl1. .711.,.+ 1, '�``i] tI i Y1 I .:ti .._, yii oI I�l '' '1 F. m c ' I 3 , I s, •.. NORELL AVE. , . : I� 1; r: 1 111. ' F_ I I I,'.; t. II. —iII WASHINGTON AVE. 1 11 , . . /ii.! !I 1 T I 0 m011111110 z$ `� �''1 tiv �It' zs 5 r■ MX N /.... - iiiire:4 )- ' I I I ( 1 ! IIf 1s .•;1ai, '1 P.1 �I itI I1T 4 i� 1 r y ( Ir - 111,. ,,•• � i '1 t pq n a f 1 —.* eZii".1 n I 1 i i -_.t M y o�k1,N1 -I i �I•OAHOREEN AVE. �.s.,; � 1 = 1 g,1 ..�." ..--. .,„_ GR.EELEY AVE.(CSAH 66) L II I I '} f1„t-.-r it - ..�41( a t fsc=z •;1!;111 • • 1 tun '�.il Ilydl'fll • s J yy{} fit}t tLrPtk:. 7.. jy�•mU111',• • ,. A y..grrgt I -6 4i..._ ■1 _.1, !o arl)i;`,,, L..__.1 .._._ • — � a • 1 9, m�t-u I: , `i • • J r f4.no_ LJ) I Ll. .1 I f dig y= re ( _ r l u' g�FiJ Il 1 �►� A i j� i l 107', �.. ` gat ({ �� : l '' • •. ; a ,. '. I lei I II''r t1(it 1y i r -- __ tI I 'ill , 1 TI"9,( I f� _I lI d _.p OSGOOD.AVE.N.(CO RD 24) ��,r s. ” OSGOOD AVE.N.(CO.RD.24) = r,. __ '''''''''''-'4.11.'".;10,14=.-. '} io , II }.l,. y,-. r � lNttt�'�, t ., 11`.Il�_ a: 1,; �a 1,) ll aim I, ,a1 , 3 4), �m' Iyl I'j l�. II tr ei fA me -tzs' tF i �lI.i I ti I? �.�'" t r ;�j ,os�i..�D - F e - NATCHLINE. � m C+f�z a} (SEE FICCWES 3-4, 3 IQ 3-13 AND 3-16) a 2•• • • • R' o /1 N y i I I 1 i' f _ kN l l l CT ∎ H j i r; I I O ,„y I gZ 1 � Ju l,m - co z . , , II I , _o L ,po"f � I c a `l I11 1I 6 1 ; •• tD H rn l R I , i l I II Y o I I I L.,1,.1)1. P. u 0 1 1I T12'4 ..... ' - - - 11 NORELL AVE. ` -- WASHRQGTON AVE. L) < 1 I I i-;ii 1 E.-- I ! f L- x •. i g l 1 ( I 1' i, .m 7�i ii1 '1 —11,, w 4.II °1r, I I . I _Y crt 41� I III I; l � -4 I 1 r I i i x i„1 1` rl M. 5 (._,.,, I g .�L.,_JI} 11( m �'.ec s !ti 4 8 OAKGREEN AVE. ° r,l l_. .II ' -""' u i ,Ir. I,'1111 II � ‘ .I GREELEY AVE.(CEAH 66) i' r .. I I tI i ..( ( . 11 fl-,'-"''''''.1 d r111 III�I ? rrt X1 11111I't ( of I.I 1 d�}� 3 IMF I � C II L 7 {,'{. p"°"��.11 t1V u1!s 44k�,i1,1+'i II 11� { F.. �'Il r� .[!1��Ll, , 7 11 i ifI,s c' k C J it l r f' I !L!. 13 i` - a , 11,-- 1 c110 1,-ii LG 1 1 L� r l Iu r ��,I 7, 1 (r �; 3 ( 11 I ''L• 'It'KI,I a1k.I 1 .. _OSOOOD AVE.N.(CO.RD.24) •, OSGOOD AVE.N.(CO.RD.24) `-11 11`t ((�f5---.-1N11-sl(I 11 II 11 f1 ' a�N { l 11 l'.-77.-7;1-.1.t 1111 U d,l JAI t�.',;,�f 1 .:I � III ,I ++' gyp' '7l , Hr y°1 IS -—► - (SEE FI m RI G �. F i • ST, CR+OIX RI VI-F.).. CROSSING PR -_ tECI Annual Project Summary Report (March 2007 through February 2008) This summary report for the St. Croix River Crossing Project is developed in accordance • with the Amended Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), the Riverway Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the 2006 Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement(SFEIS) and the FHWA's Record of Decision(ROD). This summary report describes the actions taken by FHWA, Mn/DOT, WisDOT and other agencies during the prior year to implement the project and the mitigation commitments. This report will be distributed to the signatories of the MOA &MOU's and members of the Stakeholder Group. The report will also be available on the project's website. Implementation status of the 2006 SFEIS's mitigation package is found on the attached chart"Status of Mitigation Related Consultant Agreements/Contractors". A timetable of actions completed this past year is shown below: March—June 2007: The Terra Terminal Building above ground was removed as the first stage of this mitigation item. The second stage includes removal of the foundation and relocating the Shoddy Mill and Warehouse to this site. The timing of the second stage will be tied to the construction of the new Hwy 36/95 interchange. (Questions about the Terra Terminal Building Removal, contact Todd Clarkowski at 651-234-7714) • Page 1 of 6 March - October 2007: City of Oak Park Heights Complaint against State of Minnesota (Mn/DOT) • regarding Municipal Consent Law: Complaint filed by Oak Park Heights on 10/10/06, contending that the former, pre-2001, MN Statute be utilized instead of the current statute as Mn/DOT used with Stillwater and Bayport. City argued that the former statute should be followed because consent was first submitted in 1995 under the former statute. Washington County District Judge William Ekstrom issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Court file CO-06-6815, dated 10/18/07) siding with the city that the former,pre-2001 statute should be followed. For details on City of Oak Park Heights Complaint against State of Minnesota (Mn/DOT)regarding Municipal Consent Law, including the following, go to http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix/documents.html a) Summons and Complaint-by City of OPH- 10/10/06 b) Defendant's Answer to Complaint-by State of Minnesota-Mn/DOT 11/3/06 c) Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents - by City of OPH - 12/29/06 d) State of Minnesota's Answers to Plaintiffs Request for Production of • Documents -by State of Minnesota-Mn/DOT- 1/26/07 e)Amended Summons by City of OPH - 6/4/07 f)Motion to Dismiss -by State of Minnesota-Mn/DOT- 6/6/07 g) Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss - by State of Minnesota-Mn/DOT—6/6/07 h) Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Support of it's Motion for Summary Judgment-by City of OPH - 6/20/07 i) Affidavit of Dennis Postler, Bonestroo, Consulting Engineers for the City of Oak Park Heights -by City of OPH 7/9/07 j) Notice of Entry - Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order - by Judge William Ekstrum 10/18/07 (Questions about the City of Oak Park Heights Complaint, contact Nick Thompson at 651-234-7728, Adam Josephson at 651-234-7719 or Todd Clarkowski at 651-234-7714) • Page 2 of 6 March 2007 -February 2008: The Transit Feasibility Study, started in August 2006 is expected to be • completed in the summer of 2008. This study is one of the project mitigation items described in Chapter 15 of the SFEIS at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix/docs/sfeis.html (Questions about this study, contact Nick Thompson at 651-234-7728 or Jennifer Conover at 651-234-7711) June 2007-February 2008: Sierra Club complaint against FHWA and NPS: Complaint is primarily challenging Section 4F (parks and historic properties) and NPS Section 7A(Wild and Scenic River) issues. For details on the Sierra Club's Complaint against FHWA and NPS, including the following, go to http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix/documents.html a) Sierra Club filed a complaint against FHWA and NPS. Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by Sierra Club on 6/5/07. b) Motion to Dismiss and Memo of Support by Department of Justice on 12/20/07 c) Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to • Dismiss by Sierra Club on 1/17/08 d) Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss by Department of Justice on 1/25/08 e) US District Court Summary Judgment Hearing on 2/22/08, decision expected later this summer (Questions about this Sierra Club complaint, contact Cheryl Martin at 651-291- 6120) July 2007: a) Mn/DOT hired consultants (facilitator, historian and bridge engineer) to work with the Stillwater Lift Bridge Advisory Committee (SLBAC) to develop the Lift Bridge Management Plan and Repair Project. Establishment of the SLBAC occurred in April of 2007. The first SLBAC meeting was held in July 2007, and an Open House is scheduled for March 27, 2008 at the Houlton Elementary School from 5:00-7:00 P.M.. The SLBAC is reviewing the Lift Bridge portion of the Loop Trail as they recommend a management plan and a bike/pedestrian conversion project. This activity is one of the project's mitigation items and can be found at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/liftbridge/index.html and • as described in the Amended Section 106 MOA at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix/pdfs/stcroix- amended106moa5-16-06.pdf (Questions about this issue, contact Todd Page 3 of 6 Clarkowski at 651-234-7714, Jim Lilly at 651-747-2127 or Kristen Zschomler at 651-366-3633.) • b) Mn/DOT completed the nominations for the following Minnesota historic properties to the National Register of Historic Places: South Main Archeological District (includes Hersey Bean site), Bergstein Shoddy Mill & Warehouse, Log Cabin (a.k.a. Club Tara), and Stillwater Overlook-South. Nominations of these sites are one of the project mitigation items. The project's mitigation items are described in Chapter 15 of the SFEIS at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/proiects/stcroix/docs/sfeis.html . (Questions about the nominations, contact Todd Clarkowski at 651-234-7714 or Jackie Sluss at 651-366-3624) c) Meeting held with all applicable Federal and State agencies to discuss permitting of the project. (Questions about permitting, contact Todd Clarkowski at 651-234-7714 or Terry Pederson at 715-836-2857.) September 2007: FHWA, Mn/DOT and WisDOT attended a Project Management Plan(PMP) Workshop sponsored by FHWA. Because this project is considered a "Major Project" under Federal guidance, a PMP and a Annual Financial Plan are required for federal funding assistance. This workshop began the PMP process according to: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/mega/pmpguide.cfrn FHWA, Mn/DOT, WISDOT are developing the PMP and the Annual Financial • Plan. (Questions on the PMP, contact Jean Wallace at 651-291-6119) November 2007: a) A Loop Trail Animation, based on the SFEIS and the Visual Quality Manual, was completed and distributed widely. The Loop Trail Animation can be found at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix/visualanim.html (Questions on the Loop Trail Animation, contact Todd Clarkowski at 651- 234-7714) b) WisDOT completed the nominations for the Wisconsin historic properties (Nicholas Thelen Farmstead and Louis Kriesel Farmstead) to the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations of these sites are one of the project mitigation items. The project mitigation items are described in Chapter 15 of the SFEIS at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix/docs/sfeis.html (Questions about the nominations, contact Terry Pederson at 715-836-2857 or Bob Newbery at 608-266-0369) December 2007: Permitting meeting held with FHWA, Mn/DOT, WisDOT, Corps of Engineers, and National Park Service regarding Section 404 Permit and Final Section 7(a) evaluation. (Questions about permitting, contact Todd Clarkowski at 651-234- 7714 or Terry Pederson at 715-836-2857.) Page 4 of 6 January 2008: New River Crossing Bridge — refinement of concept- scope of services drafted by Mn/DOT and WisDOT for hiring a consultant to develop information necessary to write a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the potential procurement of Design-Build services for the River Bridge. Draft scope of services was sent to FHWA along with a request for FHWA authorization to proceed with this phase of the project. Mn/DOT is leading the consultant hiring. A consultant is expected to be hired by July 2008. (Questions about this issue, contact Todd Clarkowski at 651-234-7714 or Terry Pederson at 715-836-2857.) Next Steps for the upcoming year: Timetable for implementation is being determined by FHWA,Mn/DOT and WisDOT 1)Resolve Sierra Club's legal complaint issues. 2) Continued Stakeholder Involvement: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix/stakeholder.html - SLBAC - Permitting Agencies • 3)Mitigation Package Related: a)Lift Bridge Management Plan and Repair Project with the SLBAC b) Transit Feasibility Study c) Continued planning and implementing of additional critical path items (see attached) d) Continued work on defining funding and timing of other mitigation items 4)Design Related: a)New River Crossing Bridge—concept refinement b)Permitting coordination with Federal, State and Local agencies c)Final Roadway Design activities for the Minnesota and Wisconsin approaches 5) Communications Related: Continue with news releases, website updates, formal and informal communications to keep interested parties informed about the project. 6) Funding Related: a)Financial Strategies Planning (FHWA lead agency) &Annual Financial Plan Development b)Project Management Plan c) Project Cost Estimate, considering construction cost indices and inflation (see attached) • Page 5 of 6 • Project Team Contact info: FHWA: Cheryl Martin 651-291-6120 Cheryl.Martin @fhwa.dot.gov Jean Wallace 651-291-6119 Jean.Wallace @fhwa.dot.gov Mn/DOT: Nick Thompson 651-234-7728 Nick.Thompson @dot.state.mn.us Todd Clarkowski 651-234-7714 Todd.Clarkowski @dot.state.mn.us Adam Josephson 651-234-7719 Adam.Josephson @dot.state.mn.us Monty Hamri 651-234-7631 Monty.Hamri @dot.state.mn.us • Mary McFarland 651-234-7506 Mary.McFarlandAdot.state.mn.us WisDOT: Tom Beekman 715-836-4628 thomas.beekman@dot.state.wi.us Terry Pederson 715-836-2857 terry.pederson(a,dot.state.wi.us Brent Pickard 715-836-4623 brent.pickard @dot.state.wi.us • Project specific information, including the current project status, can be found at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix/ Attachments: Project Layout—Preferred Alternative-on Aerial Photo,dated 4/24/06 Status of Mitigation Related Consultant Agreements/Contractors Chart, dated 2/26/08 Project Cost Estimate One-Pager,dated February 2008 Filename: P:/myfiles/stcroixrivercrossing/stcroix-annual report for march 2008.doc • Page 6 of 6 1 M I N N E S O T A A N D W I S C O N S I N D E P A R T M E N T S O F T R A N S P O R T A T I O N r. 4 R4ve, ? DSSih sIO v . 1'� k I , ; . c.., `� ,J -moo n I 14 M.1- 4 tr II P.,X41 -• ,,.21r. ---., L.1,1 24 tai-!. i t., "y4: f : '!'::-' `)--+ tL..r iW —i f II L. 7 I. ,.i� • _ _ Current 2010 Programming Cost Estimate Cost Estimate* (Mid point of expenditure considering recent construction cost indices and 5% inflation rate for future years) (1)TH 36-TH 5 to Osgood Ave $26,300,000 (1)TH 36-TH 5 to Osgood Ave $39,455,000 (2)Minnesota Approach $50,600,000 (2) Minnesota Approach $75,910,000 (3) River Bridge $166,100,000 (3) River Bridge $249,184,000 (4)Wisconsin Approach $39,200,000 (4)Wisconsin Approach $58,808,000 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $282,200,000 CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $423,357,000 Mitigation Estimate $16,552,000 Mitigation Estimate $16,552,000 Construction Contingency(7.5D/o) 25%Engineering $74,688,000 And Management Reserve(1%) $35,985,000 PROJECT TOTAL $373,440,000 25%Engineering $105,841,000 PROJECT TOTAL $581,735,000 STATE SPLITS- Current C ) Minnesota Portion $210,282,500 STATE SPLITS- Programming 43f Wisconsin Portion $163,157,500 ((P) Minnesota Portion $328,620,000 Requested • *2004 Base year Construction Estimated inflation impact per month or 1* Wisconsin Portion $253,115,000 Funding pre-constcvdion phase delay is$1,115,000 W W W . DOT . STATE . M N . U S / METRO / P R O J E C T S / S T C R O 1 X 1 M I N N E S O T A A N D W I S C O N S I N D E P A R T M E N T S O F T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 5 121 lye? C) Off4h ;.. Ni U.S. Department of Transportation Signs Record of Decision for St. Croix River Crossing Successful Environmental Streamlining Process Moves Project Forward U.S. Transportation Secretary, Mary E. Peters, signed the Record of Decision (ROD) for the St. Croix River Crossing to connect Washington County,Minnesota,and St.Croix County,Wisconsin,clearing the way for forward progress on the long- planned bridge. The ROD is the federally required environmental-decision document that explains the reasons for the project decision, summarizes mitigation measures required by the project and documents the approval of park and historical land issues. Once completed,the new river crossing will replace the 75-year-old Stillwater bridge,which will be reserved for use as a bicycle and pedestrian crossing under the terms of the decision. Even though construction funding is still being sought,the state Departments of Transportation in Minnesota and Wisconsin have already started preliminary work on the project including a Transit Feasibility Study, Lift Bridge Management Plan development, removal of the existing Terra Terminal building,nominations of eligible historic properties and iildfinement of the new river crossing ge's design. "Today is truly a great day for the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin. We have broken through years of gridlock through a stakeholder process that brought all parties together to find ,-. a solution that we can all be proud of"—Frank Busalacchi, WisDOT Secretary - y� '� .t a..e"1. ^` -M-ate y 4;e j ems+ --"Y, . '41�+ _- -; a DRr...VI.,.Lad.ng Up.4pw•hy.W Vow.f Mew Cm..N.g-'a"9.='OirbiJ" ,":<......-= ..-:.: -_sir "This project will help meet the transportation needs for both :> states, while protecting our truly remarkable natural resources ro along the wild and scenic St. Croix River" —Carol Molnau,Lt.Gov./Transportation Commissioner m1_ _. "After years in limbo, this project is moving forward because everyone was able to work together,cutting through red tape "� „"����� while at the same time being good stewards of the environment. EXISTING """"""""'"""o i fM.1-.a"" This project is showing the nation that you can ask hard MC..,�y.KMMti!4!till pNMt I a MM.TM V 4.1.0 Aerial View of Sunnyside Marina Looking West questions, apply rigorous standard and still make tough 0 P, Proposed View of River Crossing-"Organic"Design decisions in a reasonable amount of time." —Secretary Peters W W W . DOT . STATE . M N . U S / METRO / P R O J E C T S / S T C R O I X I 4. • • • 0 • �_ F< 5 � : a � o Q e R m ' c & �I 4 a iipJ - S �° g. x$ d s=� o G � iHtf'Ii1IJiiIHIiU! � �; I ° s : a e-�0 Ei li Hi 5 " 1111 ' gS y6 1s. ° 3s f —l 3 I, a S gfl g3. 6 ~ 1 ,'.Z E•i '' .- 1∎1111 /1. F 1' - IA oil Sal. G �d �' t g s �$1 '� B o i 3g xis ? cg ? p� : E a o L i I v- 5.6� t 8 Yy l i 1 ;. s' 3e s s 8 A Vi li.a ' n�,,: E ?° 8 R £° a� - 6. p. g q" ` p r3 N. R•." 4 m 73 R. "< "a Ali 1 a SS E 2 ELT 6I R 3 O a � g Q °z ��' 6 E� � y 6' g.g$' . �s 5 3 a g�g N � v� § e HI! 1I' 9 2 3 3 lig, n, ' ,g $ r 6 s �A E 8 w C Z cp • F&3 P. p E.T C - 5' c 2 . . t ! Eiiiii .� �I T'' R. G F N m• Y p nr ,i 1 J'sf -i i �:! ""° m ` T [ i 5 k' S ' m C 3 S 4 r f I F' 6 q�i 45(' E' m g =p N -1 R p ^ g i S f & N. M 9 N c. SDI 39^• SS > a m H _� 1 1 I - Z S� I 0 I 2 6 a t^ K g A �; 'a _ 5 i I I j >_..i' �„ 0'�• j w S }� Oro ,^ ! w D. .,.4• F C, i e 5 e i ,88. . 118 1 11 E A 8 `" 6 VII I I s m: 8 $ 1S § 5 I $ )/ 13 C'S C' 's• aK E G i. 1▪. I K Y E S C f x a _ s[pp s s a s l s Qs , cc s �a"" F Asa]x s s e 8 E : y 18 ll i SF. 'XIS N C 1 f i� .`i 8 F ;i88; u a E f ,E E E-E YJE £EEE 3 IE E I s I5 h m 3 a 2k 7 E 7 E g ` E• [E.,£ £ fe E E£c E gg - gg gg gg F 2S F F' C' F C' £ F S Ss$ I a . 3 . .-, g $ �� ! 8 F pg,i 8 8 888 8 1 C • g 6 1—I- . , I _ I H ! jli .1 6 $- •' !o 11 1 ILI I IIll I I 1 1 .11 k3 et . . I u 5 1' a 1 g' g g g i $ �•g' i a -+, fl n nn n c r n n3ra� n n n 3 nn nn p a F # # # � a CIS P. P ��' 5' .�� ° � '2 2� a e' S' I g - - - - 1111 ° ° oe ' "IZ .. g r I�4 '4 _ �� ; � � B a —� M• x Q x ' s x '�' Ili R � 'g°_lY a'� �� @: a aR 10 a R. € F 2 gg. 8 . 6 �. 0114 Oo p p pp pp Yg 'qsy Ii n •,Ci 9 9 > > Y S S S yp r.!I y� Q '>' f �' f s g '� O- � a3 x D a I X cD IMO ' .'.',Okt'''.:-. _ 4 kA u CD CL l ) 11 O --- z.---.'XI D 11% C To Ica -r a snn^{W• x.rtn pp �n-.� n �n r 3 ° TI F•O o+f° N 7 ,=.,'"CW Ni• 77 IA 7.••/9/ Drea Nw o II '9 o c° y ?_'°v m o o ,"=vi c 0,.= cp m 10 cn�m �m 0 -� 3 OO m m c c m °. a - it D C Q. �m D A w. N 0 O m CD co m m co m 4' 00= m a m o v 00.r r c o o . _ o `.°0 3 a ° y a ° o c = "c = °N-3 3 °N A `° 71 O = q N••c a ' .. o�3 o A c ' A o°B. N A N- A a ...01 V o`yGr f •�p`y;r 1 O^'O l.pO Op E N ° 0-4- _ Let 70 ••••• CD n R•O —F- O*s' yy C X/� N a a O�, rn p O .o�V -o - r 0 O Od � • 0 N V pa o�. N r N O r N O r. �� co O° . OA OP C3 .. O O A `O:A 1� 0 T 0 T N T D -, °ic A Z� ....I'M va D � n • o`aa0 ° v" ° 3 A= o C Y. ' o Q C O o � D o w� o 0 C � (Q < w° � o= o3 = o =`0 f = = = m =-* ? �W c ° n N 3 3 = D 3F 3n a M O n =..--a s° -= 2,. m—. OW Q = C m W a rn C C ,c. n 3 o CD c s ° � < =-.17 T y ' a' =• n . K a ' cr.' rc N c " N 77, -C a -<Tpa Q V 2 7C N N - rn N O °S N n O N •%m N rW °7 N r-1 C N CD O N N 3 cw N= H ° N °° N ol/ N P °- = = o = C o a o°m o •G NO S o 04 =00_ • '°o `p°"r rio 14. oo= C ° �? oo .,°W 0— o°' '=,.... o: o* �A ° -, V o o 3 20= a -4 . ✓ o V --I...9 V C V O O XN O. ' D N V T N O o_0 O CC O i C N° N ° y m O CD OI N 0 c CI o m c E. a -o o f o o A f. D a N W o \co C O p O E --c O 7 a rt 3 N C= h Y -, tJf N O OT d — T o �� N ., 70 S c o o .r- o• D_ III_ a 0 Mill = 3 2 4" a \ ° °`° �co m = o. 3 ~641 0 3 Re 3 D 0 m' cn = m a °- v O so Coo O O O N o f= ° t° rte• m .r CD 2 70 O m o�� w 'co Z O 3 = . ^ a = N 7C Z 72 0 N' _ r N= a C 7 0 s U p MI N O T W G. ° e N co � a tel a • co T C co = = z o .. v+ 2a = m CD `.° o in s 7 co 7°c- a o = = co r r o = CO ra = o C _ 3 W 9 CD S A S t(• -. 3 co 0 n z o co O = N g — CD 3 s R. o r m °c 5 = 3 co o _ S CO _ O B 2 _g 1 n a- For rn N r c v a CO . = 3 c �_. o ° = 3 S CD = _ C) = cD d CCD = 70 a S S _. m o a co to, `= ° n co c 7.8. _ Cr O T o ii o_ 3 o x,, - N CS c N Ce y . r ,. / \ / / 02/26/08 L . 11 —"ll''''''.''''. :'''''''''', L.. tM ,gyp 1 } r '-.4 d i '� 1,,,,,..2.' .v .lri 1 `y��z• -fib r� ''t�' ,. E hotr1/44, • t ; • .. A- �, !§ . • 11011111n •I '- ' 1110!1:111 i;}11:15 F ,4 i'•.. ,,,,; .•4 k1-i:1 I s i :y 1 111 Oi¢ t J r i:01` n A>; ±14 x f i-{ a ,:;,:..4.'^',,,,,„i',,,-N ..'• + ; rt i." i d..2""l:,d� - y`r° ` . 14-.4-.4• A DAHL-TECH, INC. PLASTIC CONTAINER DIVISION MN/DOT, Metro District June 20, 2007 Todd Clarkowski Area Engineer 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Mr. Clarkowski, Since receiving your last correspondence from September 1, 2006 I have met with a local attorney who knows of you and spoke highly of you who advised me to go on record concerning access damage, taking access rights, and court cases with the state department of highways. Please refer to CIVJIG 52.45, Taking of Access Rights and CIVJIG 52.50, Damages for Taking Access Rights. Both address Dahl-Tech, Inc.'s concerns. The law is well settled in Minnesota that a landowner is entitled to compensation where the owner's direct right of access is taken even though other, but less satisfactory means of access are available. See Ci ty of St. Louis u'o as Park v. The Almar Company, 313 N.W.2d 606 (Minn. 1981);Johnson Brothers Grocery, Inc. v. State Department of Highways, 304 Minn. 75 229 N.W.2d 504(75); City of Chisago v. Holt, N.W.2d 390, 392 (Minn. App.1985) Again,these cases have direct correlation to Dahl-Tech, Inc.'s concerns. I have serious concerns as to how your proposed design will allow Dahl-Tech, Inc. to stay in operation and not have the three parcels become "land locked"that are north of the plant. Again, your comments would be appreciated. Sorry for our concerns and thank you for your time. Sincerely, 9( Roahlke President 2 Cc: David Baudet,Mayor of Oak Park Heights mac: Eric Johnson, City Administrator ST. CROIX TRAIL NORTH, STILLWATER, MN PHONE: 651-439-2946 FAX: 651-439-2976 • 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 October 29th,2008 Mr.Todd Clarkowski, Acting Area Manager MNDOT East Metro Area Water's Edge Building 1500 W. County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113-3174 \()) RE: Visual Quality Advisory Committee A,(1,V Dear Mr.Clarkowski: 9 (� Per your letter dated October th in which you inquire as to the City's ability to participate in the further discussion of the Visual Quality Manual.The City Council has appointed two persons: City Council Member Mary McComber and City Planner Scott Richards. Please feel free to communicate with these two persons directly for future meetings and • interactions as discussions proceed: Councilmember Mary McComber 5728 Penfield Ave. N. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 marymccomber @aol.com 651-351-7879 Scott Richards, OPH Planning Consultant N.A.C. Consultants 4800 Olsen Memorial Highway,Suite 202 Golden Valley, MN 55422 srichards @nacnlanning.com 651-231-2555 While furthering the discussion of certain elements of the St.Croix River Crossing project is a worthwhile endeavor,it should be noted that the City's participation does not equate to any approvals or agreement,express or implied, of the Project or any element thereof. Until t•: City Council votes of record and takes final action all discussions and any pa► ci.atio i t se committee meetings are informational only. ,(27;e0 4incer- i ric o son City Administrator • Cc: Weekly Notes Scott Richards, City Planner \ M Doio4"80?/. Minnesota Department of Transportation r Metropolitan District yrOF TorAO Waters Edge • 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville MN 55113-3174 October 9, 2008 Dear Sir/Madam: St. Croix River Crossing Project—Refinement of New River Crossing - Visual Quality Advisory Committee (VQAC) Invitation As you are aware, Stakeholders, Mn/DOT, WisDOT and FHWA have been developing the St. Croix River Crossing Project. Status information on the project can be found at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix/ In June of 2006,the project's Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (SFEIS)was completed with the Record of Decision signed by the FHWA in November of that same year. The SFEIS documented the new river crossing bridge location and • type, the future use of the Lift Bridge, the roadway approach designs and a mitigation • package to offset the impacts of the project. A main issue of the project continues to be the potential visual impacts of constructing this project. A Visual Impact Assessment(VIA) was completed as part of the SFEIS and is found in Chapter 7 at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix/does/sfeis.html In addition to the VIA, a Visual Quality Manual (VQM)was completed for the project with involvement from the Stakeholder Group, the public and agencies. The VQM can be found at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix/vismanual.html with additional visualizations found at • http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix/visual.htmI One of the next steps in the development of the St. Croix River Crossing Project is to further refine the new river crossing bridge type as described in the SFEIS and VQM. In order to do this,Mn/DOT and WisDOT will be hiring consultants to work with a subset of the Stakeholder Group called the Visual Quality Advisory Committee (VQAC). The role of the VQAC will be to provide input, review, and comment throughout the process on issues that may potentially impact the visual aspect of the bridge, such as: the split deck, the stopping sight distance geometries issue, the two versus three pier column issue, lighting, etc. The VQAC is anticipated to be made up of representatives from the Cities of Oak Park Q p Heights, Stillwater, Bayport, Town of St. Joseph, State Historic Preservation Officers and 41111 • Page 52 of 118 An equal opportunity employer • • - . 1 0 Oak Park Sleights a� un. Request for Council Action ;NW Meeting Date October 28th,2008 Time Required: 3 Minutes Agenda Item Title: Consi .r Appointing a City Representative to the Visual Quality Advisory Committee Agenda Placement New Busi ss ,1,r1 Originating Department/Req .stor '_,rio-johnson Cit Administrator IIT /' Cc_. Requester's Signature ____h Action Requested Qonside _a_pointin. a__Ci y of Oak Park.Hei•hts member to .serve on a Visual Quality Adv ory Co t tee_ 1/ Background/Justificatiorr(Please indicate if y previous acti;n has been taken or if other public bodies have advised): • The City has received a request from MNDOT s-eki-g the participation of a City of Oak • Y q Park Heights representative on an upcoming Visua Quality Advisory Committee. This committee will be asked to further refine various d ,ign and visual quality aspects of the i bridge, etc. ky ou � r, (For the value of historical refe nce I enclosed some'of c e more recent correspondence between the City and MtV©OT relat/n to the Visual Quality anual — both from early 2007) • 0 Page 51 of 118 • r i ethe National Park Service. The VQAC will work with the DOT's and the consultant teams throughout this next phase of the project. You have been identified as a,potential member of the VQAC. We expect your participation will include attending up to 6 meetings over the next 12 months. And the first meeting is anticipated to be held in December of this year. At that meeting, a schedule for the project and future meeting dates will be determined. Please let us know by November 10, 2008 if you are willing to serve on the VQAC. Contact Torn Styrbicki in Mn/DOT's Bridge Office at 651/366-4456 if you are interested. Torn will be the lead erson for this bridge design phase of the project. p g g 1 Thank you for your continued involvement in this project. Sincerely, ( . • Todd Clarkowski MnDOT's East Area Manager(Acting) III Cc: 1 Mn/DOT: Dan Dorgan Nancy Daubenberger -Erik Wolhowe Tom Strybicki • Torn Okeefe Adam Josephson Mary McFarland Joey Lundquist Monty Hamri Mike Herman Ed Boytim Jackie Sluss Kristen Zschomler WisDOT: Torn Beekman Bill Dreher Terry Pederson Paul Conlin Bob Newberry . Page 53 of 118 ECKBERG L.AzWERS rite ATTORNEYS AT LAW � ,. Stillwater Office: 1809 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (651)439-2878 Fax(651)439-2923 Writer's Direct Dial: (651)351-2118 Hudson Office: Writer's E-mail: 2417 Monetary Boulevard mvierling @eckberglammers.com Hudson, Wisconsin 54016 October 23, 2008 (715) 386-3733 Fax(651)439-2923 www.eckberglammers.com Ms. Mary McFarland Brooks MnDOT Public Affairs 0GL_ Metropolitan District Water's Edge r1 1500 W. County Road B2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113-3174 Re: Data Practices Request-St. Croix River Crossing Project tear Ms. McFarland Brooks: Thank you for your courtesies extended in allowing us to review records at your offices yesterday. Relative to our request that we had originally made on August Stn of this year as against the documents that were produced, we note the following: 1. You indicated to us that you would be supplying me tomorrow with a CD Rom containing all the e-mail records that we had requested,excepting E-mail No. 381 that you provided me today since that apparently could not for whatever reason be transcribed or copied to the CD Rom. 2. 1995 Lay Out Plans. What you provided for our reviewing was what MnDOT claims to be the 1995 lay out plan as modified by subsequent modifications(17 in number)as noted on those plans occurring within 2006. You represented that MnDOT does not have a 1995 plan(original and unadulterated)from that which existed at the time of the City's actions in reviewing those plans. If you should somehow determine or locate an unadulterated original version of the 1995 lay out as opposed to perhaps what MnDOT staff might otherwise attempt to do in trying to create the document,I would be interested in getting access to the original 1995 lay out plan. 3. Highway Construction Plans. The highway construction plans that you provided for our review related to the number of projects, most of which have already been completed: a. Project 8214-136,a 1998 project affecting construction over the cap at the Allan S.King Plant Fly Ash site; , • ECKBERG, LAMMERS. BRIGGS. WOLFF tt VIERLING. PUP r r�_, ..u± Commerc l Law t Criminal Law t Perso-,al injury !Wrongfui Death �: F ai Er to Land Use Law t Mediation IManin pai Law e ::wi i �ation • Ms. Mary McFarland Brooks nDOT Public Affairs IPctober 23, 2008 Page 2 of 2 b. State Project 8204-37/8214-119,the reconstruction of a portion of Highway 36 and TH 5 dealing with the Stillwater overpass between Northwestern and approximately 180 meters east of Manning Avenue. c. You have provided no construction plans with regard to the current St. Croix River Crossing project and it is my understanding from representations made that there are no current plans for the construction drawings and process on that matter as none have been disclosed. If you disagree with any of the content of the letter, please advise me immediately. If any of the documents requested somehow appear or come into your possession,I would provide you this letter as our continuing request that we be granted access to them e lately. Your ery truly, • Mark ie ling MJV/sdb cc: Eric Johnson, City Administrator • ECKBERG LA MMERS FA!I, . ATTORNEYS AT LAW Stiliwater Office: Writer's Direct Dial: 1809 Northwestern Avenue (651)351-2118 Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (651)439-2878 Writer's E-mail: Fax(651)439-2923 mvierling@eckberglammers.com October 6, 2008 Hudson Office: 2417 Monetary Boulevard Hudson, Wisconsin 54016 (715) 386-3733 Fax(651)439-2923 Ms. Mary McFarland Brooks www.eckberglammers.com MnDOT Public Affairs Metropolitan District Water's Edge 1500 W. County Road B2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113-3174 (Cpy Re: Data Practices Request-St. Croix River Crossing Project o Dear Ms. McFarland Brooks: It has now been well over a month-and-a-half since we last sent our correspondence to you relative to the •ata request inquiry that we had made of August 8. It appears to me that we have provided more than ample opportunity for the State of Minnesota to provide the information requested in the time frame that has elapsed and, given the delay that has occurred, I require from your offices that we receive a commitment to a date certain to provide the information requested. If a reasonable date certain and commitment to provide the information can not be provided, I will assume that we will have to pursue other remedies available under Chapter 13.08 of the Minnesota Statutes. Yours very truly, Mark J. Vierling MJV/sdb cc: Eric Johnson, City Administrator • ECKBERG. LAMMERS. BRIGGS, WOLFF 8 VIERLIN G. PELF ECKBERG AVAIL LAMMERS effa _ • ATTORNEYS AT LAW Stillwater Office: 1809 Northwestern Avenue Writer's Direct Dial: Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (651)351-2118 (651)439-2878 Writer's E-mail: Fax(651)439-2923 mvierling @eckberglammers.com August 13, 2008 Hudson Office: 2417 Monetary Boulevard Hudson, Wisconsin 54016 Ms. Mary McFarland Brooks (715)386-3733 MnDOT Public Affairs Fax(651)439-2923 Metropolitan District Water's Edge 1500 W. County Road B2 www.eckberglammers.com Roseville, Minnesota 55113-3174 Re: Data Practices Request-St. Croix River Crossing Project C Q py Dear Ms. McFarland Brooks: V I am in receipt of your correspondence of August 8th, relative to your inquiry for clarification. Relative to the categories of information sought, we respond as follows: 1. 1995 layout plans. If the Department is affirming that it had supplied what it regards as the 1995 • layout plan, as approved by the City of Oak Park Heights within the most recent municipal litigation, you may identify for me in writing the specific pleading or document to which that layout plan was appended. I also require knowing whether there is an electronic version of that layout plan in its original form, i.e. that which was claimed to have been approved by the City in 1995. 2. With regard to the drafts of the construction/highway plans for the 1995 layout project, I will make the effort to come over to your office to review each of those plans before ordering any copies. In that fashion, we can save time. 3. Regarding to all internal e-mails, again, I will make plans to inspect those within your offices before any request is made to produce photocopies. Relative to MnDOT's implemented fee schedule, I am assuming we are both aware that the fee schedule only applies to the production of copies. The right to review and inspect co..es in person is not subject to fees or charges. I look forward to hearing from you on the matter. Yo y, Mark J. Vierling •tIV/mkr c: Eric.Johnson, City of Oak Park Heights ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF 8 VIERLING, PLLP Family Law/Divorce • Business and Commercial Law • Criminal Law • Personal Injury/Wrongful Death Estate Planning/Probate • Real Estate • Land Use Law • Mediation • Municipal Law • Civil Litigation 1 tookso4, Minnesota Department of Transportation • D�0 3 !r Metropolitan District Waters Edge OFTR°' 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113-3174 August 8,2008 Mark Vierling FOR YOUR Eckberg &Lammers Attorneys at Law INFORMATION Northwestern Avenue Stillwater. MN 55082 FAX (651)439-2923 Re: Data Practices Request for St. Croix River Crossing Project We are working on fulfilling your Data Practices request on the behalf of the City of Oak Park Heights;we have some clarifying questions that will aid us in fulfilling your request. You requested three general categories of information in your,July 21, 2008 letter • 1. "Relative to State Trunk Highway 36 and the proposed St Croix River Crossing Project,we require copy of what the Department of Transportation claims is the 1995 layout plan as approved by the city of Oak Park Heights." • The 1995 layout plan was provided to the city and the court as part of the cities municipal litigation. Please advise as to how many new copies of the city approved layout you are requesting. 2. "We request copies of all drafts of any and all highway construction plans for the 1995 layout project relative to Minnesota Truck Highway 36 and the St. Croix River Crossing Project that were generated from the Department for the period of time 1995 through 1998." Plan sets were developed for several projects based on the 1995 layout and for the St. Croix River Crossing Project during the time period specified, is the city interested in specific areas or would they like copies of all that is available? • TH5/36 interchange (SP8212-199 and 8204-37), roadway plan set and bridge plans are available. • River Bridge (SP821"7 and SP82011)two plan sets were developed for the river bridge one for a steel structure and one for a concrete alternative and both are available. • An equal opportunity employer Mark Vierling August 8, 2008 • Page Two • Minnesota Approach(SP8214-113 and 8214-114) - The plans for the Minnesota Approach were not completed and production was halted due to the Sierra Club litigation, electronic files are available, a paper copy has yet to be located. According to the 1995 project designer,the city and Bonestroo were provided with copies of nearly complete plan sets at the time. It is uncertain as to how much effort is needed to produce a full plan set, if desired, from the old electronic files. • Wisconsin Approach—plans are available from WisDOT • Other(Building removals, scenic overlook restoration, mussel relocation, wetland construction, and other plans related to the 1995 layout may also be available, if desired.) 3. "We require copies of all internal e-mails,memoranda, office memos or notes exchanged between MnDOT staff relative to the St. Croix River Crossing Project from and after October 19, 2007 to the date of this letter(July 21, 2008)." • The scope of this portion is expansive; if you are requesting any and all correspondence and materials related to the project over the last 9 months. Types of materials that have been worked on during this time period include; • i. Sierra Club litigation, ii. Transit Feasibility Study iii. Stillwater Lift Bridge and Management Plan and repair project development, iv. Historical property nominations in Minnesota and Wisconsin, v. Project Permit discussions with federal agencies, vi. Development of FHWA required Project Management Plan, vii. Project Funding and scheduling, viii. Development of Loop Trail Animation, ix. Scope of services for preliminary design of the new river bridge, x. General Transportation Funding related to HF2800, which provides potential funding for the St Croix River Crossing Project, xi. Annual Project Summary Report for project stakeholders, xii. General project communications with public or media, xiii. Frontage road discussions, xiv. Right-of-way issues, xv. Municipal consent, xvi. Website xvii. Consultant agreement and partnership agreement issues, xviii. Project coordination, xix. Mitigation implementation, xx. Other, • 1 Mark Vierling August 8, 2008 • Page Three We will continue to work on producing the requested material, focusing the scope of the requested materials will shorten the required time to assemble the data, but we will do what we can to provide the requested information in a timely manner. You also need to be aware of the Mn/DOT has implemented a Fee Schedule for gathering and assembling requested materials. The fee schedule for time and materials is attached and the city of Oak Park Heights will be responsible for these accrued costs. Focusing the request to relevant materials will help reduce the time and expense needed to fulfill this request. Please respond to this letter in writing with further direction as to how the city would like to proceed with this data practices request. A meeting between the city of Oak Park Heights and MnDOT meeting may also be an efficient way to focus this request to the desired materials,please contact me directly if you would like such a meeting. Sincerely, C. 14..eLti a - 41 r • Mary McFarland-Brooks Mn/DOT Public Affairs Phone: 651/234-7506 FAX: 651/234-7759 Attc: Fee schedule cc: Nick Thompson-Metro District Area Manager Bar bara Forsl and-Data Practices ` MN/DOT'S FEE SCHEDULE Below is Mn/DOT's fee schedule for costs associated with copies of data. Note: Mn/DOT may waive the charge if the total cost of services and supplies is under$5.00. 0 Product or Service Fee Comments Commercial Value: (e.g.Mn/DOT maps) Varies Mn/DOT may charge a fee for data with commercial value to recover Mn/DOT's actual development costs. Copies: 100 or fewer(8 1/2 x 11) $0.25 per page This rate is the maximum Black and white pages: allowed if response consists of 100 or fewer paper copies (8 '/2x 11). Copies: Black&white copies made on copy machine or lazer printer 8 1/2 x 11 .03/page+labor costs Legal Size(8 1/2 x 14) .04/page+labor costs 11 x 17 .05/page+labor costs Copies: Color copies made on color copier or printer 8 1/2 x 11 .37/page+labor costs Legal Size(8 1/2 x 14) .41/page+labor costs 11 x 17 .49/page+labor costs Diskettes: Pc hard diskettes .73/diskette Compact diskettes(cds) 6.00/cd Diskette Mailer .91/mailer Fax: 8 '/2 x 11 .03/page+labor costs 11 x 14 .04/page+labor costs cling Costs: Actual cost of envelopes or gular size envelope .07/envelope other mailing materials plus 9 x 12 manila envelope .19/envelope actual postage or delivery 12 1/2 x 15 1/2 manila envelope .28/envelope costs. Padded envelope 6 x 10 1.20/envelope Padded envelope 8 1/2 x 12 1.42/envelope Mileage: If necessary to transport data to requestor IRS Rate Miscellaneous: Varies This category is for items that do not fit into any of the other categories: fees should be based upon actual and reasonable amount. Photographs: Hourly rate of employee who This fee will vary depending develops/reproduces photo+cost of upon the salary level of the film&supplies or the cost of individual required to do this developing the film if sent outside of work. Mn/DOT Postage: Actual cost of postage Recording Tapes: Cassette tapes;regular size 1.09/regular Micro cassette tapes 2.11/micro Remote Access to"Enhanced Data: (where requestor has Varies Mn/DOT may charge a fee asked that data or access be enhanced). Example: Requestor for remote access to data or asks Mn/DOT to convert data from one computer program to the access is enhanced at the another request of the person seeking flit _ access. ff Time: Actual time required to retrieve,sort and copy Hourly wage of the employee Total labor costs will be assigned to gather the data determined by Mn/DOT Finance(C.O.) O40p14Esot, Minnesota Department of Transportation I.ayTransportation Building Office Tel: 651/366-4235 395 John Ireland Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 •oFm ' July 25, 2008 FOR YOUR INFORMATION Mark Vierling Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff& Vierling 1809 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Vierling: This letter confirms that we have received you request dated July 21, 2008 for information under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act(Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13). Your request included the following items: • 1. Relative to State Trunk Hwy 36 and the proposed St. Croix River Crossing Project, a copy of what Mn/DOT claims is the 1995 lay out plan as approved by City of Oak Park Heights 2. All drafts of any and all highway construction plans for the 1995 lay out project relative to Mn TH 36 and the St. Croix River Crossing Project that Mn/DOT generated from 1995 through 1998 3. All internal e-mails, memoranda, office memos or notes exchanged between Mn/DOT staff relative to the St. Croix River Crossing Project from Oct. 19, 2007 to July 21, 2008 We will provide the requested information as quickly as we can. Should you have questions, please contact me at sue.f.steinCa?dot.state.mn.us or 651/366-4235. Sincerely, C44- ./. 5(-64:- Sue F. Stein Data Practices Coordinator Minnes ota Department of Transportation ortation i IIII An equal opportunity employer 4,O40.1ESOT92o Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District '>OFTRP? Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville MN 55113-3174 July 23, 2008 Eric Johnson City Administrator Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Re: St. Croix River Crossing Project July 17 Letter Dear Mr. Johnson: In response to your question about our letter to the City dated June 30 , 2008, there were no plans, documents, specifications or other materials delivered with the letter. As indicated in the letter, the Department will deliver materials to the City when they are al) completed and not less then 120 days before project bids are received. Sincerely, ick Thompson East Area Manager cc: Mark Vierling, City Attorney Susan Mulvihill, Mn/DOT Acting District Engineer File • An equal opportunity employer ECKBERG LAMMERS Ili ATTORNEYS AT LAW • Writer's Direct Dial: Stillwater Office: (651)351-2118 1809 Northhwewestern n Avenue Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Writer's E-mail: (651)439-2878 mvierling @eckberglammers.com Fax(651)439-2923 July 1, 2008 Hudson Office: Eric Johnson 2417 Monetary Boulevard Hudson, Wisconsin 54016 City Administrator (715)386-3733 City of Oak Park Heights Fax(651)439-2923 14168 Oak Park Boulevard North Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 www.eckberglammers.com Re: St. Croix River Crossing Project—Municipal Consent and Letting Status June 30, 2008 Correspondence from Nick Thompson Dear Eric: Enclosed herewith please find a copy of the former statute (year 2000 edition) Minnesota Statute §161.177. In anticipation of what could be expected from MnDOT in 2012 or whatever date they actually decide to proceed with this project, I would suggest the following be secured and set aside in preparation for that event. • 1. The 1995 layout plan approved by the City of Oak Park Heights. 2. Although never presented to the City, I believe a demand should be made from the City to the Department of Transportation requesting copies of the highway construction plans for the 1995 project and, in the event that there are no highway construction plans, the draft of the construction plans that were completed on the 1995 project up to the point of the federal court decision stopping the project in 1998. Dennis Postler may have some thoughts relative to the internal Mn -- records tha, fight exist relative to securing those at this point in time so that we could isol. - e details and critical as.-cts of the 1995 project layout. What I think would be best is to agai .ursue at this time a demand 'or public records with MnDOT so that we can isolate those records , d have them secured and • -pared for the review that will ultimately be necessary when MnDOT --turns with this projec Mark J. Vierling MJV/sdb Enclosure cc: Dennis Postler, Bonestroo ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF '3 VIERLING, PLLP Family Law/ Divorce • Business and Commercial Law • Criminal Law • Personal Injury/Wrongful Death Estate Planning/Probate • Real Estate • Land Use Law • Mediation • Municipal Law • Civil Litigation ECKBERG LAMMERS alp •. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Stillwater Office: 1809 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Writer's Direct Dial: (651)439-2878 (651)351-2118 Fax(651)439-2923 Writer's E-mail: Hudson Office: mvierling @eckberglammers.com 2417 Monetary Boulevard Hudson, Wisconsin 54016 July 1, 2008 (715)386-3733 Fax(651)439-2923 www.eckberglammers.com Nick Thompson East Area Manager Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge t 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 5511-3174 Re: St. Croix River Crossing Project—Municipal Consent and Letting Status Your Correspondence of June 30,2008 •Dear Mr. Thompson: Thank you for providing me with a copy of your correspondence to Mr. Eric Johnson. I think it best that the Department focus on the order of the Court dated October 18,2007 in its review of this matter as opposed to positions of either or both parties during the course of the litigation process. The City of Oak Park Heights will be forwarding to your de ment a request for p •lic records in this matter and request that you advise as to who the respons•: e individual at the Mi esota Department of Transportation is to receive that request if it is not thr. gh your offices. I loo. orward to your response. Yo s very truly, dark J. • • MJV/sdb cc: Eric Johnson, City Administrator, City of Oak Park Heights 10 ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF & VIERLING, PLLP Family Law/Divorce • Business and Commercial Law • Criminal Law • Personal Injury/Wrongful Death Estate Planning/Probate • Real Estate • Land Use Law • Mediation • Municipal Law • Civil Litigation a O�,NNEso,s, Minnesota Department of Transportation 1t z Metropolitan District ;��OF,,,,,O Waters Edge Ill 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville MN 55113-3174 June 30, 2008 Eric Johnson City Administrator Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Re: St. Croix River Crossing Project Municipal Consent and Letting Status Dear Mr. Johnson: Thank you for your letter of November 6, 2007. As you note,the District Court determined that the Commissioner of Transportation sought municipal consent from Oak Park Heights in 1995 and that Minn. Stat. sections 161.17, 161.171-177 (2000) governed and still govern the AImunicipal consent process with Oak Park Heights. The City of Oak Park Heights granted municipal consent on August 14, 1995 in resolution 95- 08-39. During the City's 2006 complaint in District Court, Oak Park Heights informed the Court that there are no significant differences between the layout approved in 1995 and the current layout dated July 18, 2005 and that the project is unchanged as to the trunk highway elements within Oak Park Heights. Therefore,the next step for Mn/DOT in the municipal consent process with the City, in accordance with Minnesota Statute 161.177(2000), is "the submission of a copy of as complete a set of construction plans as is possible,which will be issued to prospective bidders and in accordance with the project layout plan." With the new State Transportation Funding and requirements enacted by the 2008 legislature, Mn/DOT has established a construction start date of fall 2013, for this project. The materials defined in 161.177(2000)will be submitted to the City when they are completed and not less then 120 days before project bids are received. Mn/DOT will continue to work with the city to provide updated project information as it is known and work with the City on local funding and other issues of concern. Sincerel ' ' ick Thompson V 411 East Area Manager cc: Mayor and City Council Members Mark Vierling, City Attorney Susan Mulvihill, Mn/DOT Acting District Engineer File An equal opportunity employer • 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 December 12,2007 Ms. Jennifer Conover MNDOT-Metro District-Team Transit h�, Mn/DOT, Metro District CCM S.+ _ / 1500 W.Cty.Road B-2, C6'^�^'t` Roseville,MN 55113 G°� I2���1� 71/414;) RE: Transit 'easibility S—dy Dear Ms. C nov- . e o The City is in receipt of the documents you have provided that appear to make up portions of the Proposed Transit Feasibility Study relative to the St. Croix River crossings at STH 36 in the City of Oak Park Heights as well as at 1-94. • The City does thank you for the opportunity to comment on these documents; unfortunately, until such time that MNDOT has satisfactorily secured the appropriate funding to pursue the construction of the new St.Croix River Crossing Project (and its related elements) the City must decline to comment on this document as any commentary would be significantly premature. As the City is aware,this Project is not slated for construction until at least 2024 and that funding sources remain undetermined. If you are aware of a different timeline or funding availability, please let us know immediately. Secondly, the documents provided to the City are significantly incomplete with several parts to still be completed,including the market analysis.Accordingly,engaging in a review of what may be a significant document without all of its elements for consid= at'. n is not efficient or reasonable at this time. I , •, • b appy to answer any questions you may have. n,e - .,, •-f Oak Park Heights •. City Council Members Nick Thompson, MNDOT Todd Clarkowski, MNDOT Mark Vierling,City Attorney • .r ,. A:4. ECKBERG LAMMERS ri ,11 • ATTORNEYS AT LAW Stillwater Office: 1809 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Writer's Direct Dial: (651)439-2878 Fax(651) 439-2923 (651)351-2118 Writer's E-mail: Hudson Office: mvierling @eckberglammers.com 2417 Monetary Boulevard Hudson, Wisconsin 54016 November 6, 2007 (715) 386-3733 Fax(651)439-2923 www.eckberglammers.com Mr. Nick Thompson Area Manager Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113-3174 • Re: City of Oak Park Heights St. Croix River Crossing Project Status Dear Mr. Thompson: Following the determination of the District Court in Washington County as it reflects Court File No. 82-C0-06-006815,I understand that you have been in contact with the City requesting additional follow up meetings with regard to the potential for a discussion or drafting of a cooperative Memorandum of Understanding or agreement between the City of Oak Park Heights and MnDOT relative to the above- referenced project. Before re-initiating any discussions along those lines, the City would need the following from your offices: 1. The City will require that individuals with the authority to bind the Department of Transportation to any agreements attend and be present for all such discussions. We require an advance letter from either the Commissioner's office identifying the persons assigned who have authority to bind the Department as part of those discussions. • ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF f3 VIERLING, PLLP Family Law/ Divorce • Business and Commercial Law • Criminal Law • Personal Injury/Wrongful Death Estate Planning/Probate • Real Estate • Land Use Law • Mediation • Municipal Law • Civil Litigation Mr. Nick Thompson November 6, 2007 • Page2of2 2. We suggest that you provide an identification of issues that you consider as remaining that need discussion between the City and the Department relative to this project. 3. We require an identification from the Department as to how the project will be funded relative to any aspect that would otherwise be regarded by the Department as a local community expense. Relative to same, we also require the following information: a. The Department's identification of those elements of the project which the Department now regards as a local government unit expense. b. The Department's projection of the cost relative to each of those elements and the assumptions, if any have been made, relative to projecting that cost. 4. Now that the determination of the appropriate statutory requirement for trunk highway approval and municipal consent has been determined by the Court,what is the Department's projection as to when the process for local consent and trunk highway improvement under the former statute will be initiated 0 with the affected communities within this jurisdiction relative to this project? 5. I refer you to your files and a copy of which I presume you have within your file of the correspondence of February 25,2005 directed from the City of Oak Park Heights to Mr.Rick Arnebeck (your predecessor in your position) with regard to the City's equrYements or inclusion of elements within any proposed MOU. We require the Department o make commitment or address each of those elements before we would agree to schedule any mor- earings or me,eti/ngs relative to this matter. Yo s ve ,..fi ark J. Vierling MJV/sdb cc: Eric Johnson, City Administrator • sDO�� csot4yo� Minnesota Department of Transportation o Metropolitan District �2r of Tari Waters Edge • 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville MN 55113-3174 March 19, 2007 Eric Johnson—City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N—Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Re: Visual Quality Manual City comments Dear Mr. Johnson This response is to the city's comment letter dated February 5, 2007 on the St. Croix River Crossing Projects Visual Quality Manual (VQM). The Visual Quality Review Committee (VQRC)was a sub-group of the 28 member Stakeholder Group. The Stakeholder Group came to consensus on the projects preferred alternative location, design,bridge type,mitigation package, and future use of the lift bridge. The VQRC had representatives from community,historical, environmental, and • transportation interests and developed the VQM recommendations by taking into account these varied perspectives. The city was represented on both the Stakeholder and Visual Quality committees. This final VQM defines the visual direction of the VQRC as to what the project will look like. Project designers will utilize the recommendations in the VQM during the development of the projects construction plans. The VQM recommendations are encompassing but do not cover all issues and the VQRC has recommended a mechanism for future aesthetic decisions. "To maintain continuity and ensure that the guidance and intent provided during the planning process is conveyed to future project participants, a Visual Quality Advisory Committee will be formed. Advisory Committee members will be made up of a smaller group of the VQRC and include community, resource, and National Park Service representatives. The Advisory Committee will work with the DOTs, designers, and contractors to provide input, comment, and review as project design and construction phases develop." (VQM, Section 10.1) The graphics in the VQM and the animation give a good overview of what the project will look like from a variety of perspectives. Feedback during the VQRC process, the development of the VQM, including the mid-point and the final open houses,provided valuable feedback that helped shape the recommendations depicted in the VQM and in • the future the projects design. An equal opportunity employer r The following addresses the other comments provided in the city's comment letter. • Facility maintenance,project costs, and layout issues are beyond the scope of the VQM; these issues have been discussed and are included in the draft City/MnDOT MOU. • The deicing pump house planned for the bridge is addressed in the draft MOU and mentioned in the VQM (page 3-9). It is located in a well screened secluded area. The VQM does not recommend any specific treatments for the building. The draft MOU states that Mn/DOT will coordinate with the City on the buildings design so it is consistent with City Design Guidelines. • The trails and trail crossings proposed with the project are shown on the project layout. The layout shows three at-grade trail crossings at intersections along Hwy 95 and access is provided to the river. • In the VQM(page 9-8), shoe box lighting is recommended at the intersections along Hwy 36; however, cobra head lighting is recommended on the river bridge and at the Hwy 36/95 ramp intersections because their curvilinear shape is more in keeping with the curved forms incorporated into the river bridge design. Some other type of curved light fixture may also be appropriate for this area and will be considered when the project is in the design phase. • • City Gateways are discussed in Chapter 9 of the VQM. The table on page 9-20 suggests possible areas for city gateways. Defining the eventual location and the actual development of a city gateway will require a separate locally lead effort. The VQM only provides general information on city gateways. • Deleting the Oak Park Heights reference on page 2-1 was conveyed to the editors, that it was not deleted was an oversight on my part. All comments will be considered as project development continues. Any significant changes to the recommendations defined in the VQM will be discussed by the Visual Quality Advisory Committee (VQAC)discussed in Chapter 10 so that the project maintains continuity with the VQRC recommendations in the manual. The VQAC discussions will take place during the detail design process and include an Oak Park Heights representative. Thank-you for the city's participation in the VQRC process,no formal approval of the VQM is needed by the city. Sincerely, . Adam Josephson East Area Engineer I • ' 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 February 5,2007 Mr. Dave Hall,Architectural Specialist Minnesota DOT—Oakdale Offices 3485 Hadley Avenue North Oakdale, MN 55128-3307 RE: Visual Quality Manual Dear Mr. Hall: The City is in receipt of the Visual Quality Manual (VQM)dated January 2007. We have had an opportunity to review the document and have the following comments: 1) On February 28th, 2006 the City sent correspondence to your office with our commentary at that time on the DRAFT VQM that was provided in late 2005. • As you will recall the City indicated that, "...the VQM that the City has received as a draft document is incomplete with several sections, maps or drawings missing. Accordingly it is premature for the City to comment on the viability of the entire document until opportunity has been provided to review the material in its entirety. " Since that date the City was not provided any interim drafts nor was it updated with a final draft version for commentary and inclusion into the FINAL document. Additionally, no public notice was mailed to area residents advising them of the final public open house for this FINAL document. 2) As commented in 2006,the City does not find a discussion of what agency or entity will be responsible for the continued maintenance on sidewalks,trails, trees,plantings, gardens,etc. To date the City has not agreed to assume these responsibilities.. 3) As commented in 2006,the City has not been provided any additional information regarding the construction and operation of a"pumphouse" necessary to provide the new bridge deck with a de-icing system. This will require planning and engineering review by the City as MnDOT is expected to comply with the City's Design Guidelines. How will utilities be provided to • this facility? Will there be tanks of fluid or other stored materials on site? 5 4) As commented in 2006,the City asked that the second paragraph in the right- hand column of page 2-1 be amended to delete the phrasing"The name Oak • Park Heights implies". We note that this was not changed. 5) As commented in 2006,the City asked that the first paragraph on page 3-1 contain a statement that the STH 36&95 Interchange is in the City of Oak Park Heights, as opposed to its relationship to the City of Stillwater. We note that this was not changed. 6) Page 9-8 references the use of shoebox lighting for roadway lighting,as the preferred system. This page however states that the VQRC express a"desire to avoid cobra head roadway lighting". The City lighting standard requires the use of shoebox style lighting and is consistent with the comments in the VQM on page 9-6 discussing concerns of"light spilling". Cobra head lighting is shown in Figure 5.3(on page 5.7); again the use of this type of lighting is prohibited in the City of Oak Park Heights. 7) Figures 9-21 and 9-23 discuss gateway locations for Stillwater, Bayport and St. Joseph(WI);there is not a similar discussion/treatment for the City of Oak Park Heights. Additionally, gateway consideration should be placed in the city for which they highlight, not in other communities. 8) The process identified from the public open house in September 2005 was not followed. The depictions of the various bridge designs were to invited the • public be involved in the selection of a bridge type. The proposed bridge type the public selected is no longer the bridge the people saw at this meeting. The third support pier,the thickness of the road support is now twice as thick and the superstructure of the cables is just a decoration on the bridge no longer needed to support the structure are all changes from September 2005. The public open house must be reopened to allow the public to see all bridge types and select one with accurate information. 9) The impact from Sunnyside looking out across the river is to see a wall of piers almost completely obscuring the Wisconsin River bluff. Looking out toward the one gets to see 18, 25 foot diameter, 75 to 150 tall bridge piers rising up to support a 28 foot thick bridge. These piers cross the entire front of Sunnyside. This will greatly reduce the property value of these homes. 10) Following a February 2006 city review of an incomplete manual the city was expecting to review a 95%or higher finished document to review. And,with a limited 11 day general public notice to the people of the final visual manual open house was staged for an inadequate public review. Only the Pioneer Press published a story to alert the public the day of the open house. Why was a mailing to the public similar to 2005 not used? 11) The final roadway layout has not been approved by the City and the City may . make major changes to this roadway plan. The City may want the match the new Beach Road, 36 over 95 and the Sunnyside Bridge to the existing highway 5 bridge design. The City may review the various river bridge types that were proposed and select one that would reduce the impact on the City. 1 12) The City has yet to receive for review the depiction of trails proposed with the plan in detail. The trail across TH 95 must be grade separated with a bridge • since this is a goal of the city to have a major trail connection to the river. It is the City's understanding that the VQM is only to be used as general guide(as discussed on page 1-6)for design and application,but not something that should be taken as fundamentally conclusive or a final template. Considering this,we would ask that MnDOT provide a definitive statement to the City that this understanding is accurate and what the exact role the VQM will be. Additionally,we ask the MnDOT provide commentary to the points discussed herein for future attachment to the FINAL version of the VQM. Please note: The City has not approved VQM and the City reserves its rights to offer further commentary and to object to unacceptable elements. Please let me know if you have any questions. S' cere - 412707 City AN. • • N .tor Cc: Adam Josephson, P.E. • Minnesota DOT - Waters Edge Bldg. 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 Terry Pederson, P.E. WisDOT 718 W. Clairemont Ave. Eau Claire, WI 54701 • �otooEs074 Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District F�o,,,pso Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville MN 55113-3174 August 1, 2006 Eric Johnson, City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights P.O. 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Subject: Trunk Highway 36/Stillwater St. Croix River Crossing Municipal Consent and City of Oak Park Heights MOU Dear Eric: We have reviewed the proposed language outlined in Mark Vierling's June 22nd, 2006 letter regarding the appeals process. We have determined that we cannot agree to waive the municipal consent appeal process. We appreciate the effort of the City in preparing this option for discussion. Sincerely ick Thompson / East Area Metro Manager Cc: Adam Josephson Mark Vierling AUG - 3 2006 • An equal opportunity employer DO�Ap1NESOT4Z0 Minnesota Department of Transportation n a g Metropolitan District ��OF„P�ye� Waters Edge 441 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville MN 55113-3174 August 8,2006 Eric Johnson Oak Park Height City Administrator 14168 Oak Park Blvd. North Oak Park Heights,MN 55083 Re:Municipal Consent Process for St. Croix River Crossing Project Dear Eric: This letter is to inform the City that Mn/DOT will be submitting the St. Croix River Crossing project layout to the City under the current Minnesota State Statute for municipal consent(Mn Statute161.164). In an October 2004 letter to the City and in recent MOU discussions,we stated that,per the city request,Mn/DOT intended to follow the old municipal consent statute that existed prior to 2001. S However,after recent review and discussion with legal council and Mn/DOT management,it was determined that proceeding under the old statute was not defensible. Submitting the layout to Oak Park Heights,Stillwater and Bayport under the current statute is the only legal option available for this project.The current statute is a more defined process than old statute;it lays out what information must be provided to each city,and clearly defines the timing of various steps. Essentially nothing changes in our submittal of materials.As planned,Mn/DOT will officially submit the SFEIS,project layout and an estimate of local costs to the City for municipal consent. The City will need to schedule a hearing and take a formal action on the consent request within proscribed timeframes of the statute.The request for consent will be made this fall after FHWA has issued their Record of Decision.The FHWA action is expected in early September. In the interim, the City and Mn/DOT need to continue the MOU discussions and resolve remaining issues. I regret that Mn/DOT needed to change course on this issue,but after reviewing the statutes and discussing the issue with legal council and staff we came to the inevitable conclusion that the new statute was the only reasonable option for this step in the project. I look forward to the continued discussions and conclusion on the MOU,the council workshop in September and finalizing preparations for submittal of the project to the City for municipal consent. Sincerely ick Thompson East Area Manager An equal opportunity employer t , • i City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 July 17,2008 Mr. Nick Thompson MNDOT-East Metro Area Manager Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 RE: June 30th,2008 Letter-St. Croix River Crossing Project. Dear Mr.Thompson, The City of Oak Park Heights is in receipt of your letter dated June 30th,2008, copy attached. • Othe •' e singular letter, the City received no plans, documents,specifications or a of z aterials. If other documents were delivered with this letter please let me :In - el , Eri. Jo/ son City A,/ministrator // Cc: Weekly Notes Mark Vierling, City Attorney Susan Mulvihill, MNDOT Acting District Engineer ' oa�N"Ey;),4y • Minnesota Department of Transportation I o Metropolitan District 0 1').„ pi Waters Edge 410 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville MN 55113-3174 June 30, 2008 Eric Johnson City Administrator Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Re: St. Croix River Crossing Project Municipal Consent and Letting Status Dear Mr. Johnson: Thank you for your letter of November 6, 2007. As you note, the District Court determined that the Commissioner of Transportation sought municipal consent from Oak Park Heights in 1995 and that Minn. Stat. sections 161.17, 161.171-177 (2000) governed and still govern the municipal consent process with Oak Park Heights. 11 The City of Oak Park Heights granted municipal consent on August 14, 1995 in resolution 95- 08-39. During the City's 2006 complaint in District Court, Oak Park Heights informed the Court that there are no significant differences between the layout approved in 1995 and the current layout dated July 18, 2005 and that the project is unchanged as to the trunk highway elements within Oak Park Heights. Therefore, the next step for Mn/DOT in the municipal consent process with the City, in accordance with Minnesota Statute 161.177(2000), is"the submission of a copy of as complete a set of construction plans as is possible,which will be issued to prospective bidders and in accordance with the project layout plan." With the new State Transportation Funding and requirements enacted by the 2008 legislature, Mn/DOT has established a construction start date of fall 2013, for this project. The materials defined in 161.177(2000)will be submitted to the City when they are completed and not less then 120 days before project bids are received. Mn/DOT will continue to work with the city to provide updated project information as it is known and work with the City on local funding and other issues of concern. Sincerel ick Thompson 0 East Area Manager cc: Mayor and City Council Members Mark Vierling, City Attorney Susan Mulvihill, Mn/DOT Acting District Engineer File An equal opportunity employer FT. • r ECKBERG co py LAMMERS ►®i 0 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Stillwater Office: 1809 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Writer's Direct Dial: (651)439-2878 (651)351-2118 Fax(651)439-2923 Writer's E-mail: Hudson Office: mvierling @eckberglammers.com 2417 Monetary Boulevard Hudson, Wisconsin 54016 July 21, 2008 (715)386-3733 Fax(651)439-2923 www.eckberglammers.com Ms. Barbara Forsland MnDOT Data Practices Compliance Official 395 John Ireland Boulevard St. Paul,MN 55155 Re: Data Requests for Records Dear Ms. Forsland: •On behalf of our client,City of Oak Park Heights,we are requesting copies of the following records from the offices of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The records we request are as follows: 1. Relative to State Trunk Highway 36 and the proposed St. Croix River Crossing Project, we require copy of what the Department of Transportation claims is the 1995 lay out plan as approved by the City of Oak Park Heights. 2. We request copies of all drafts of any and all highway construction plans for the 1995 lay out project relative to Minnesota Trunk Highway 36 and the St. Croix River Crossing Project that were generated from the Department for the period of time of 1995 through 1998. 3. We require copies of all internal e-mails,memoranda,office memos or notes exchanged between MnDOT staff relative to the St.Croix River Crossing Project from and after October 19,2007 to the date of this letter. Pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, we also request that the above listed government data be made available to me or our designee for inspection and copying at the earliest convenient date. Pursuant to the act, we are entitled to inspect the above-requested data at any reasonable time and place. I will assume that unless directed otherwise that a reasonable place would be your offices and that the reasonable time would be during normal business hours. I also assume the Data Practices Act Compliance Official for MnDOT is aware of the responsibilities imposed by the Act to •achieve full compliance with the request. We request that all of the requested documents listed above be provided to us no later than Friday, August 1, 2008. ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF & VIERLING, PLLP Family Law/Divorce • Business and Commercial Law • Criminal Law • Personal Injury/Wrongful Death Estate Planning/Probate • Real Estate • Land Use Law • Mediation • Municipal Law • Civil Litigation i Ms. Barbara Forsland MnDOT Data Practices Compliance Official July 21, 2008 Page 2 of 2 If the Department claims that the government data requested is privileged, not public data(see Minn. Stat. §13.02, Subd. 88), non-public data (see Minn. Stat. §13.02, Subd. 9) or otherwise not subject to disclosure, please provide a description of the government data, the basis for withholding the government data,the date and all authors and recipients oft Al eld government dat I look forward to hearing from your offices at your earliest opport • Y urs very trul Mark J. Vierling MJV/sdb cc: Eric Johnson, City Administrator, City of Oak Park Heights HLUU .. ''F O n O O �F t•=a) 8 X S C ° X 5'H O ` ^ `R' ., ° r p T ° b �a n E o K C v- -}O [; U Np Cl, C 5. ° • , aO s k 6 � a UL ,U o 5= C c8i C.-o•a o w o 5.-°y er b 5 e W rn v co ° o °`< o C a C r. r ° 'cll.= y .7..,N 7 0 17 O0.°< _:..'d. C • C `.CC ° C S E.9 z Cr1 = n • -. co 5 (�_ ,-g.,, p n c°o a i° n m 5 ,,* b 5 c A z c F n v ° C c° ` 5 F� A CY . .„.4„,Nti � a� Ca yarn , c` - ,,- [o b... 0 '� al N 1 IV O N c' Z O .° O n W 7 O O C s'O D O 6.N N O P p c, o r d o• a p _ r5. G rb 0 y 5 Oti `C 6 m m ',Y7 ,, ,22 C C p S G C.T 2 O G a-, tq f° * 2 O'v R r..r N d 2 5=C p, c' C 6 o ° T. Q• O N'GC � D ° 'N. C C< -O. . 0. . G R 3 O R , c C ^W ° O L H C j � . 3 O 5 n O ry ,.. C C F,° 5-C2 ,T P V n O.z N ;1 .! •O,. y n ry W.ty f° C ° O o2 ao-°'Y` 0.O N�m k' W ;�5 ,y'�7 O 5 C C C- H�o �[F. 7 w III v , ,n a w O ar.• < ,,C ,1 ! I o o a F-8 o 8 5 8 "4 v c 5'•°., d 5 ° °•2 K .5 `O° O o rn N a '-3 x C � o . o n ti � 7 , FI .aa•�C'-� 005 , 2.5:=.%5 w o: , n , o c°`. S "' a. . C ,9.'42 :: 2 '4. i° 5 .° .,,as o 5 C =. cr 2 � y -° Riaa o5 -1:i p, =C C8 ,, a' o' ,T.° c° pg.,,, o cAl a. ] y e o 5 y o ti ° Y_a ° v R. x a" E 5.o d • C:`c C C tE i._cE n•+° c w " arnw 8 O- C 7 p' �• C y 2 1p a• g C 8 ,1 1 °•2 , C ,p. ' R'y C n. < CSn O -a- W m O gs . 0 G--C = . Q C W ., d , O cn o ;q " w 5 E 'ate•° (w c y Ran n ^ •i 07 r','5 ti 0; m "y = .arn 9^ ' y 0-a w` a^O < N s g ,a. C• ''2-m n 5 n o n 'o o yo w <•a ro e 0 ° 2' °_ cn C... w, Cu y`<, _ a, C g n S° `g o k =-a ,g.n m (9 w Cg . m x 4 c a T C ° ° w R o i2.-rn cvaantlg 422.44 nci n . � 5•'x< m y 5 k� °- o °• 8 p o o C A w C.11 a ° ° rn a gK?w g ac=, c " g ^' pCC' ;pCti °+ '< 2.� o $ 3 s ao o £ cm oa �^ n5'g' ,C1— ^b s .O � 5•a �2 S ' , ` 4 = 4's g o56t n g r w' ° C7°b 0,8• '62 2. '' 0 .,1805..- - ,7,-5.,, . N.N `.••w H5 " • ° g �.ti<.i � n 5 H o'b s' ° ^ c o a 8. - .. � � 5,Q N N C O p w O ^'.. G O • 8 g a'-t S p C -' 88,-....=0. On y .n o O P.Fn a r''6 O 0'O 5 O a^ - y CO " C C O 5 7 W b G. r'.F. 2 C D ° a, O 2 .' n m '7 ° p .r,f ` c 2,. 5 (7 o a 5 m o ti c q' ° n o N g :.o a F n o '' o o n C °-° m.n m < w cO d E- o q , 2 P g co . 5 7-7s."7-• ''''''§n. ^ ? n 5'°'< n''ma °a.9[D . C C F °a`F C =5.'.. .. c O < N h' o - -ta '- 2 'k O C ', e, ° 'C yO . a2 < `'.B N O° = ti.w . - 3 b(- 5) oo a s 6 c 2 % .. ro v, P= p' 8 Y x w g `'< `G N ° O N v=a_, c-°-y v p 'G.° p B ' a- 5-. 4,, a C7 •',, o N , c c o`< y Cv p g p ! o v H o n ° v v 5 ° ' o =a y m m ° F'v' c m 5 0 w p C `° GG p,. C J.7 0 o a �• 1UIHUi y � x .° RHIIH a 7 W pm " Z ° °iiEII O O ti cW n a• 30 F -o�, w ,, w vc • . z ,_ a' . , Oa- c . „.. 8, p. ao o 8 o y a o N ? w 6 F -,, moo �X m K0 q :- m g p E., oR.- 0 o c a u c 0 . ° g o w cpz y w e G w N n s a ° c v a Ro ° ° ,-o c 'o y i : qc w z 5m O a d, (, m ° 0w o a�w :„ ° � . g t ° v o 5 z- , - a v . ,.- �- c — di a ? 0g' a5 ooc 5c cv.ogTOa o m ma° n 8 ,,P-.ov . .„ o O N T n 5"y g O : hW ^ a .W` t r9 c_ C a'¢ w C w w ?y 'O n 0a 3 ` ° w V 2'W N y' 0 � n O c csa g ° `� o y orn g �. ? �° 0 w gag ❑ 5 -^o c° h o• a2 °G < i n°g - o.S o 2„14g2 o n'°.2aa'='°n.° in ao' 'S C] cv° 'C"'°'^ y� ,o ° o '° p°° ° co its ? ° o w w ?. ono a 0 0 � 0 0 5 o E_ m S a X03 0'w r o b y W w a H g g.cam°K `f0` 0 2 7.z o O t`° m q = o ' ti 4 -< E o ,° -n ^ w <.-a O ?.o p° X X w a = - o; °a w c m p e m B ac -.� o $g °'E m nc, £' ° a P, 5 �"�.'.y ° X n 1X5.f g g .o w = 0°'(.y 1 m w o ,x ."-?° .5;xcoi x T g as•5 w O.H a y.r.3 C 5 a w = - 'g 0 C 0 Cg - ,7,--,-.-.2.° m -014 - .... ;= . C C 2., K c.c w a '” 8 °.2 c 8 w g c w e.y 2° g:7;110, '6 5 ,, w ° c0- ° � c' og °` g ° =-0:i �y E0 N •° ° w 1.c5� ° F,, o ° °•'_ Ea.m ,$, 0 c5u ° cy z2-,g.. o 'gcr . a 'w_. 0'ti o g ° 0 4`� E 2•� o 2 �b w a 5 C)c c 8'- N. ° z iIvi d o ,, co C7 CD .iIu c g o o ' ''°,c° d z° F O g z a p e a�'o s0o c 0 c o o? .c 0'D 00, E: O y O C 'Q �'pCj• y a w .w+ N O. .. C w•5. y 2 a O C• .o -* w m 0 s co 5 7 rA m E cn ca° • c a� w t.� a c m o vial o - dc C A n c' c c °c g -. E'.=^ i° -3:o w.;g ^ k.O 9 a O a c e 5,.,��°, °o m 5. 3 °, �as °e 0� o o a_- 0 c�= =-n9 ,7,-. 00-=• 9 a„ y,o c m e 0, n c° a 0 Q. ^a g m w w ` ° a,. H 9 " ,s c g o o c5° 5 o 8 P ?; °5,'< c o c a . e ww 'c°. c?a E N m o':r o t:, C7 o �' °-',,7 ' w < ,C-r ,. - 0,</' O (. .U.' O O C. Q' w O .On-r W y ui 0,c g a° c B con n a v N r c C ea f o ° ' a £ c o F. 3 � a S¢ �° w° � 5'^ a..C° � . mwo:o'ryoo � - .D0 .S 5v,To = a w M o a`.y; , coi o o m o 0 .,,5 o a s- .D0 .St n o m p 0 g ss. .. , o G w "'ro G7,�O D o c C.0 a in v �.rn m ° ° `" ° s o'w E? rn a '��.ti c x o c �, F -"U 0'c° 0 . c c Xw 0 0c ,,, a; c.�: 0 to °c 0 .7..g x° o 7,0v2 a O,`0. °^? c° -,-� Ee c a- 5.0.g C a'o 7E a cc s'y Fc w .p •g ° .,� 2c° w a,.y pw 2.a-. °.,A .°" , x54'e o ° o'g a `c 74 F E cc°. n 5 -m m ' ? 2, ,w 3. •, y.g 0 ° o ° . o o °•0 28Th. i VT' '' o4s' cao03 . ° °°" Oo mix a ,-v4 H g n vo m N ti a w a�O � .���S.N ;-3° 0820- 2 o Tw -•c w dE ,, °° _7,N 0 E 0 .y 005.y, ',o °p o 0 asp C T C .O• 0 g i O O VO �'. B ?.N g'b •r" 9Y,x y C w < o -; O B (° O 5.5-= cr.,,° 'C 7 C w 6 2'< 7-.. by FRG y p y O l° G. l` a 7 N OG w a °'cwi a ° y c' x = a.* O 0 a' ; cc', 4. t5° S .o n 0 y m C w o c ,0'.°. 5.8 cD c E a° o � c 5+�, rn'� 5 sK . c° 5 c `a' , '2 " E�'? Oy,C x o a ca" ° a c. f° a_'.m V> t. 5''' , .&. a 2 ;=i '°-n g'ou y n m w " y.2 a° 'o 'n , cr o o E' `!,0 '•§.,, g a x �o`, O o la g 7 O' ° a o vo, 2-8' 0 0 ° - 3.,g2'.--'15g89 ,;,..n5 c° m W. a' co g y aa w_ fi _ ° w O °o y a��'E ° o g g 8- ° r5 5 '5+ o s r5'' 0 0 o y a o g -G - ,, c . ° . a . , . 411 2 w 0 o �c° g G a o n � o m c . a 1 U g a a w 0 5 ,e w S." o m n a O c o P, 6 = , cO o P N i2. m F -' 0 con :1 '' P a u 0° m ,` N4 -0 c 5 y o ,n y O 7 o o • c v l §: Fro ct c_•N Z o'" 2 2 c 0 0 g ^'° C a 5 at'y▪ _2 ° ° a c<o c ,•, `-7• o w we 'a rn P.' -'=5." O 0 v . cn io = 0.0a(00 '61 b w 5 o 0 a o.o . CO o y'O a 5,. ° m 5'y & ° a-o'S:b T a ra 0•-.0 0 a-' 4 N <'5 - nl ° £ ti< c . c m ° o,w 1. ° - •" N ,, 0 o w c o o- '' w a• co p.ti o, ?. H v, n a ° �7 o c. a: G • a M s m 5 -.„, g.,.5 'o ° a f a• s o 4'•P'. °' a o ° o ,o K'° r °. '° r as c m . E ° o.a» ~3 5 c a n 5.5"a s K.- CD D a c`' w a a•� a 4 - , c aav Y ° c. a'ap °-o 'oavaa < 9•on KEit V g6 .9, n ,5a5...:- - , S ,•g- Sao o a ° yp • w w s a'° ° ° <.ty ---(9 ry1 1. '. c ° n o 5 a o s ° ° . •a a'o c - o p n yy ° ? r try C w ° m ° U 1 A ° '"_ ° tx C n . o 0 x ° c.o <,? .° 9... co c w °-71 C�i ; o w ° •O 0.O v v o e o - < g < n o ° E , amm N o o c ap ° H g E. g^ o ° m c5 i. n - (o 5,g2 a e a y a w y ° 5h n w c' 8 ,o'i ° 'P °D a. < 'n o o y ,9w ❑ 0 5 °M o E.° w CP p a.a'F a ]': =g g x 1 -" a a• Fin,�•o x H T r oo R °.a 'o g 0o , ° h,a=+ c w a o o f $ V N w '�,m••w „ °n:.w w' 4.`o' U o -8-2 0'g m p"O 'C O ° °G F c .5' C o = ° o 0 cr.F o w° c o w er 5'6 ?, ° k w. ° < o 0 o w wn N° -k 5-. ° 5 -'o o 25. CCD 0-'° s too 'O ti �°.S ri 2 0.o 8-t coo �: o `°•5 s ° a F. w ° d 8" o �°, a o o A o ° E...a�.a c, 05 —rn - o ° o a M° w m '< 0 o O ca �c a o _ ° w w a m a F < c C H 1 • ro U, w a.o '0 co -- t -0y O ° A p.o o ma w 0 < d m N ,y, m ;. 65 Sp S 3 g 10 ° o (0 , . j w ° ° - V G : m G ` 5 ^ 0 • ` "C 5 4 x•c y . • a K io a w b a ,0 'o °n a° ,a g °h r a o w ° r ° 5" ° = ° ° w m o `2 K c w . er c m o ° w o G T 5 o a5 ° g g n. f < ° rCo. t f x o g 0 n v' K_: O� m 'o w o O 5 2 ( . °c N0¢ o S W w°w w rn- � � } 4 • ,, co a L a:o � fa•w .0 H v' a...8, • ° 2' o M w o 5 v, A''< o o L> y w 9'v 5, ° ° ,,tc 2 ^ ^ y Y. '°o ° ... a ,.o - H b o �h o' Foa25o ° a N o a c ii- . $ O - s � , w 4 c ° ° 5 o 9, g § ,:-.4-PR. ,, °n ° ° ° Ea N a n o ' ° oa " 5 i p ,-,R:Y w y ° o q Y hw z rn o < c K 8 S a n a• ° ° i C °CD ° T2 w N ='o go R 5.°xy w ° i ° ° a � °rn ° 0.°.~ o ° g•° ^CCO `78 0 •p o ^ 0.`G° J o N '.-� O . , o ° ° o 0 � m ' w a o m n O. h a o , N g• Fogg s 5.o .t.-co K - m.5° .o o r - v a. ° x • a n c ° ^° - ° m h a R'.yo o y o ° a a. q `< '4 a g. Dp W E..a ..vo, n 5 as < '°' oo a y »v o 5 a p ° o °D N a'5' 7.' . '' o o " "g o 5. o am -i ° ,< a •a0• og H w ° w ia w It" y 5-=F2' ") w o " '. 0 ui: v ° wa o 5 5, , C5 g 65' i o R. tr a,y. ti o c m a o 0 c1-.1 S N c R h $ `° '9 m v N N a x o 2 o ^ s -3 c°1' . V) ,64 s vc �oo o �,D 0 0 ' g � = ), N N W.-.„ ?° N„y n� n n n n N N N iI Qq ID S C n F'= V .. ON W �N NOp..-,,, ° 1 "°', . OOO a S N'IIp,'t7 L ONN tJ O0�0,� N t'a 0 8 <D ON 010, n ' �W i'4 p +,t0ii 1 .°p o0 c,0o I h T I i I v •�' 5 8 . o O' A A �.n z n 0000000w O- y 5' 5`< N 0 O 8 p 0 m D o w a a a c S c o y T T C5 1 n 3 p m g_ p y , , 'O 0. c, `p O ,.G o C.0. .� P rn cn �, O o 0 0 0,5 0 e 0- 0 a a n.?c ,.,-(-:°, L. O 1 •p :n`.1 7'O C[ o p p p p 0 o F. <`� m `G w R (p�� 1 `C O 0 a rn 1 0 a, O 5-• fl 00 cD fSD p y R..'8 a 'C G.W a '.w+ O 'O'CO (D e ? m e`e F. w`` FA"' 22 C O O'-OO a_<" , 5 a E ;31° < 2 N o 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 4 aa,, i G 6% 'n_ rn Fi' 4-°i a .°i, w 2 I _ c '8 p, P,.4 3 g O c e ° ^' '0.f z 0-- ° o en ;n rn o w o c C c c rn o m E C co w -n g F.u ��o•� o '� 'T%C Ufi G1 r<u, c ° o a ` o c 0• p c ' C 1 c G P ' we a,a os 2 8 0 g O ' •` O (A N O O O ° o? c C • 0 ^. F y o> ^ v y s » w w r g m •os Ct7 a' a° 4 d 3@ v o o EA o cr 0 O O R t--1- c O p 0 _ F. P- m a y 2 o- 5- '2 0 a w y cµ y o ° o'a a.3 F9 �' :4: 3 N k.-2 ° oI Pt. c� O U•v 0 x y a n C ae,, O S v J. c 4 `f 0 000 .<12,g d 7v g 2 `< 2fa >zo 4n =' � °w°a° tiOa r c o m<o ° G w 3 cn a-p . 0 r: 3 a w o ^ '?•'a p'5'0 7,�O ° I 1 1 1 C 4 �'m ^' o p o G C�C1 C1 oJ q. S O rri ° mo0" s C o .0 , E.7>" = oo0 ..C- o 0 0 w e e o .-3 S n n .G N ro o 0 0 o,s �vx c. 0 0v c. I11) VII n •P � U ; g � ET a" d T o:nw ro o C t~ c O '� (D'H O 7 po so a2' '°'Via. ,p•, •1 Q. O ^..'•i C 8 � `'' n. RI'w N �' II; i: 0 UI CD N m "C7 2`Q y A H N o up • til y m y y CA L G_ ^^ O4,.. Ps) E O cn • -ow x`Q A w HJ1t O PH O O m o o g N N — ° - ,7 O , O O C 4,S f p 5, F T + 4 w ° 'S rn R.o•'o v » o v E'< ° r o m 0 p d m � C 7 m a ._ w y am`< - 0C 'o n' m C "3 ti t O g R° V' S n.6 G 0 O N O Em g ° m Z w D a"N o•a s,s a'R U R d ' yy o. n c Tr . N O ° p n W O T N y .mC' O C. y 3cA §4Som g e r' 0-y o m , o L o rt05G ao Oy "` m l °. cn HI ", C (.� °0 ^ c o F. `z N =m a C `3 C O ^ 0 . E'P c a r is o a ° ^ x ._ .3 Fpm Soa � ao � am y7p 9 „3 ...O y c " p p er 9.c ..1. 0q i ry 0 y 3a GE, E °- . VUQ n O YO p ZOf . p b pi O y an O r an _ ,ION a0l 7�' C 3 h c , 1.. 9,41- -,. a , N-a g..° 9. cpam-8 7 `; m om C m Y H o,D n: (D c E o p y C7 P. ` G m .m Rw' w ,,Ca .- a o W Si a* nail-18V a glf g ° acao p r5, 4:4:a5-.0.1 O 8 g . o O'x 2 F l. O C M w y a g c m o p aa. c ^ PAW, � �w aw^ rn 1 • • m ; 5.y O °vCD xfg 0 0••••■ 55g1 '< !. gc'�-��D' 3 g O I a n� - c v �i °'O Pgg a c n - 4 9.' 4 k t O ' O y H . hI:tfl g.4. o cft ., t p nT.0A b U 4-O y - A'C a .. a 42 ,70° a q''m a R N °1,7g o O 'fig a. d A ti.y, Chu f .S.5 Cie.'. +�rn eD y a.a N I 0 J 13w RAN 1 oN U ?.Sr,--,' � 6g c ? ° c ° 0PI - CD a 1111 .•O o'C .F a- m P _ a= - "^,, ,,y..^y H k ---3 3 ev ,- .- ^G ^... 0 E o. p °I•�=1 Y v ^ n' rnz,a 2 ao 4 4nw0 CO 4,11,,,4,11,,, ,g 02 = s � aTNa � 4a � � 6 ,, a ' nw> h � xq 7 C w m gw Si - ^ ZN -Sx H "n,� w B co j c :` ' o T om H x o 0' Y. 4',`;• L . in 'n j`e :r 'W"( 3•y T 1 c ,_. j i 7 G. c W w O =N!7 Y ( co ° ' y ` _ _ '41,":-..::::, . 0 C W .Y i Ii:i y N b z _ y 3-i+a ii ° N U On12 a 5-D - E.HH- N : y C a ,.�A G O> � y CD y n . m e C n , ° H o Qj ^w.v N n Rl - ff. T ° o < 0 m y c-° • n a x o ,-.,7,'.. y w=5 •' _ na . o . a awR_ 7 p„,,A.mti .. n w\ rl7 C } 'li D \ o ■ v a v 6 o a o . 5 o n F.y s N 5� o..2, "m y 5'g O 80cg as n G n n C n 5 n 5 y o o s y o n› C 0 ? ' ? L cwg o Fi.• n v c o 6 m w 5 m 0 . r c .v N" o 5, R o 3 `" ,� x fJ o a G . ' T "Y" ' e o E ° K 7 w rn.a, ! Vfl a 7 ru if1 .,. N N w. 6. . oƒ \� § \ - zp> . . . m � \/&` ) _ - - _ a \ (\\\{ }\\} • 0 (>®{&.G0.-. 40 - \ E\r [ \( \\§ i \\ \ \ \\ \\ \\ '\ ~ }\\\\ 8 \I\} /§ ( _ \(k ( / 9. }\ ! 0 F4 g \\f j / \\} { • . • oƒ $§ }\ ( o � `\} [( } } (k \/ 0 \ o ;G \ \ � r - ® P \g.� }' \\ ® » •C E. f , % IN 0 \� \ ( . • • 0 v� 0.... =<a d rn o 3 'n <. 0 to vz Zo ax '0 5.0 dw d4) o g HI va ?:7 .ii 0+v ° 5.n❑ o m ° `f' k'w :iii H s m ° F O O °v.. a . o, al N o E.g .o c :-._^, F,- g a O co '21 F3. �N sy bma,. ;'4d nxm F.c - w `w am' zP T on 'E ° �m c 2-6,,§ 3 ° f 3 —w A o.° •o w ---'.. y _ < w$°^ ?: a^coffin 0'<9'< > >3' �. p�7. [:7 a w y•,0 S 2-0- c o'.y s, o as ri o.a y° .e m o C 0.,, n y 3° £ c a ,<cam,, 0 ° ,-5 e 7 ° d O . in. G a s m =:m �'m o v° w o a i, 2...2 x- Fy1 ? SE_ vo -,H 5m 5.awS oo! m< r. wya xi2• O L.° 01 m 11111 II ItU UI. D • gym Tog w s > y d° L ° _ C.O 3 . y O .'a O' ro C.n E°. G o �• 5 A o w o "; ° R, e 4 =, °,' n iitt 0 ,a o -oy - S' d co_S. o z F =O w OG 7 9 _ 0 00 d n— p o o o r 3•3.n O v 58 N > > C7z i ° �e o,H G -ri moo rn 0 3 3 ` 3 E n m —3 c. t .- o ? I c o.00 n ri C 0 3 o a c .. S o Q c III v, 5 o 5 °° w o E 8, o G N y 3 R rt < .y La D(-)-:„3 g R . a F a.° S III 3 a Pi O = �.o KJ w °0a) Zrfp, • c nooDn PgRa x g w ,...g-\1;3\ 0 5 g= 5 "q. W to q' _14\!„,:. gm 3$ Z 3 yP'S,o s �� g 00000, a �+ m -&� vo CCCCDO : °o O r` .0 ` nV I I I I I G ? ,0 3° 2. N x;K' 3 EGQ cD, < mho 5 i, EZ ...,. g: V o c 6'9', U : gw a.' Fc o -' F g G B a an = Ua 0 c /' W ° < b • Zpb 3 O E'.9 8 a�c °° 3 W-'2. _ _ m Q a O a m"rr' ,�' .° n°,a 3 3 1g sl CD N ffg bw° Q5 I ' 1 v S ..365."f YO 5.-0-R i . 2 ao @ V •e Ica AH a 9: nao - 'n£Wq4 a d g n m ft °m a> m °-' w;--, ,c2," 39:0� n 9 °o . 8 p n gy o om o 'n n � mpg Hg �� £V''' o N yR sgs� =w'. ° ac '° `m'O 6oa.rmo gg+,°m m eg a ra 3 ° H £ v c ^m Z . is zp� °5 6 o. o 7 n ° Cl) V c'g° S o 0 2ro O S"w. $m 6 FN t al' -o g-S. b a R H aZ- gi 4' s �v ?:EA a ° 6-f; 7 C• 80q, . ..r; A o"rn ° sego m ax :''�'mga eQ °�° e`% m g. Face, a a m°0' a n °.° m n N °ran Hav ca 4. Qo 'o, a ° log. Rm� w,a o g 3 1.8.ua a d a H! w B.! .. y n � 0 o c �F 9 rn zS yet n a R 0.9 g!'6.: ‘0„ .0.=a -oO 5. � 0 n Q2 a rrq m °°•m°+ ° m a R"1°•0 7 vn° _y A v., �3 av°g � g og m . � d a.° °V R3° R, g m BR o O n H O_ 9 °n a 0 e i 4, -a a3ba.y o-° w m icM =ct flu `� x a ° o B F `e o " SPO 4 c� A - a.� O'' - X00 °.Fa g3 "� 3 o4s° -gOA irri _ co ° c° g E fit'^° o w ga 3p'm oo�n E aF ff x 3 O a o-:,o' A'�' R F o i 0 a G w • oƒ p• , ;a ±£_\\7 & (( . ; \ / ' k I ° $ (\ƒ /(0 B $ ie� {/§ =\E « \\/ (\0 $ IH ° &/x ( c. 2§3 7 E , /\\ ; $/\[ § !i \ ` f /; P.§ m ■/ \ ( i/ \ \r I; \ \/ !. ® '4 \ƒ - ! $ {\ (E 0 }/ n /» (=&g n; km / B ((\ \\%~ \c # (:? k% ° 8a 2®« n (2 » 2@a ! \ [\c 3 \ ( ■ M /\} {\- I'o ¥ !ate J«& " \ \/ \E ! § $ ;@E a'- , Q. / � 7 �§ // (f cn \\® \E k/} (® / ` (({ c0 / (\ /// k \75 \\ \ § \{ g\( - • A pr{ °' 13 (cri? O ' Y ., o g, rn N. 0 y A c b 3 0 � m n Fo Grob S n'-' a, q F • • v :,; C T to �.m y g � .em. o '0 r"'-8 g fir, y a,a m m i 5.8.Ea O -ri y B m II R co p o aM cn e FN s•0 ❑ 0 0 a o r E.m a S.o ' C p -7 ,0 0.C •^Q 0Z r d'CS O ?0 Oy E A O n c w f7 G. n '��' 00 SO 0£ y 8-6g O p, R ;ry N 0 O m.F•o y�a l O v n F en. E.$ 7 0. C H , n C7 p u,fq yyam 0. = P, 9 ~ O • 13 a' xm t71V •�� O N '3 4 o n 3• "' ° i s •- V tn 5 5 m (" y 2..6 A ay o g o- 0 o E g < m m �a� . to • S'a c b C 0 s 4.o m S m a o Co o x S C N 3 G 8 O a 'i e c.o w O is r- - O 0 Fy o • 00 13 cu x(51, • CI no a c...o co -So V •,..0 • ',i,43, a g :=-3- 2 ii.'s ..,5 4' t....• .. 9- N - u) g...,a g:g 3-',., - • .37. FgN 48. 45' il iPOrgr3 f9 4' 0 a •0 ,s e iii g gr. „....., co gf .0 .12' k 0 - 0.7 8a - LTIPI z e -r, •rri p S SI. 2 i 30- 1. 3,E; co gr. 3 eiP I--,;'; i r17 L. .,6,, 2 g--''ci. K ),.. '8 e K g i . ■-t 7'= i. . ..-, •- •1:.. < 5 W Z e. 7 ; CD "3 --'. ' - I g a... a wh' o i ..',...._14111. i il i-* s• 6-1 gri.4 g ?':. <, ...'S• sp,,s1 F, 0 g" s- p-4,., 4' , 1 '0. v -,.?8?, 8 1. E. • 1; ,R7ga E g. n F•ng 6 ; 4- a :.1 E g .... .tz, 5' 17'. e . _ , .._ 1 . 13 .1,, V' . ;4,-'•.•7t . cu ,...■H Ir. C./7 . , 1, ' CD X P ' -„ .' 8 405-0 q,s go ,2-0,...-0 . ••4 '9-- V''' '. -'5- ).>, g • `.3%; gg,_,9 "3"..2. R a g."';q I 5 g" ',1 6-0-1 P. 1: i•-•,, n'44414 \: -a a 0,••`,,'' 9 ri•• E , 'g, .0, t: ,C) n , .. tpg f-44P ,.. .. - - - Fr-. .•.7. •rE' ...7 X a =.0 - co " , ,•&'• ' .g.11 01; 5;3, .zg,03 ;,-; •53.- - -, 5.6,g. ,:- , ; > _ •-, F g- Wg 3.27'S:1 '. . -- - 0 5' - to- - 0.: . Ca -.. I.,'.7 . cr' ., ' FL,'-8 ' ' 2-5.3 ::.9-,' - -`: -3,;:?=0 , . 7 0 5 PRik .P ..:.g a - -.5; L.,-2 F. 7-,•:-.'g':''..- rt.:. 2 :4- .,...L t0 0 9,-.•-■ ,__, ■0-- *- , 0 - 4 ,i• LI • 5. 5 ? .0 0, 0 . ,,,, .:, ,,•• 0. > -', 5 - , ,.,<•-='8 ._. fgga i• X . 5 o < .-',- -.• to-.-•P2. , e87 ! 77'' ,7,7 -.,, 6,\ . g 2. g.,E. FA F•r,-- q T,', ..•-O' a ' ‘. ' EZ• = sK 0 0Q ,,, -o- 0.•,i. ..' F,•,•,-a , — . r`.4 g F, ..• . atT4 tz,4'1 g•Egp, a • -z3 - - ro,7,fig 5 a b• = 9.ra: 42.5" a g• H , g'• .0 , ;Z- .U0 . ._. rA-E.., 3:43P ›7 pd -- .=:3 - -a 5 " ;a R. .- . • . . . .g.,.g V, k z,:.„o al -•,....••• . -a , -....•0 g_ 9 . ,.,:-2•s a< ,-,.. .'4 .- oclo.o 8 • , `,.3 - 5-z= -a, .--,!° 0 - g- • - - o ...-g rt, a it ' ''' 8 8 '3'...:'. ...'.2-,•`'..S',,5- u5 r."a 0 ,p, rE-- c)3 .a,,, ,-,..-7 ont; 94i0 :: w • , .7 • 5' , , • ' E I ; •R q. • . .-1 <2 ,,,, . F, . . s .9 75,, ,4 ...a *, 8 'c'.0 X •g. ' •• a ' 0 ' c,. . ''-o :-...,-• a — • . •. " ... GE - ,•"8 C, E3g-,34 •,,• _ - 4 0 - 0 -oR g.<1 gi- ,o• • E 8 ,.'.-.•,•'', . a:. , , • . , o-13 O ct'„ n v -c•c >- ° c « �• -! �-or• moo _ 7.6 -tga it' 0 x� `'a° c o = <C �,z ? � - — %.'v,,--0 i y 0 m a 5 c =• a- '' = 3 =� Ea F U`' 7 `.,.e E.o N T 5 oc a°a N 2.m wym N A> Co o , -3 c K-1 >c,- ,a, >n ry y V w 0<.v: y //• 3��y <b . N O N F /x/D 3 r w P. z n I 5 o 3 0 5 dx `^ w ^ • G y z. N A N 0 c C ^w n Y.i o C o 3 .'i. n•0 w▪ ., Vv b S H. O h t n-rt ow w 0 n III it • -041 2(2 0 o) J A N O a •-•• .0 •a'y mo,'o' --� C =.52:> a a, 9 0.0-0.. 5° a c a 5 + w g O T•.'c•y oo. �m ..c ,- c". c' w s R_° v a a 2-. c do co r ='m _. pa- 2n T 0 C c ''d ==(V w w N _ 0 0 5 '= o c o 0 o . -0 ' o 'w ( °T ° 0'o v F vo ^ n 4 C O'0. ,0; ° 5' 3 .w Tm °.T . 5g,FOO SC'r �v ,o .„y° � 2, y nC_. 92 y y' O w G N G C O -3_.5,H O J (1 O = 0 C 5 0 N 2 0 " N n :J 5° !ItiH`w< ^ 3 ` O b o p - 9° TS w < .A is ° a ` a o. y = a(.. °"o: fy u_ , ,' e 5 o5 3 70 °o I5 ,47 s C 35c,c - o -n'3 w M�w F o,c :, _v n c>o w - C ,9-;."Z P 0 m m c" w ti` o ¢ "n = ^ n- ° ° 70g--(0,2'-K °.. no- 0 w . w r c' �o m 0 5-,2 <•. .s.' U _ 8. om ' w T . 5.' , .ta Tmr_ 3'=-c ° o _^ =c _ v ^' o$ y c ° R a t a o 5 `. n G. o y r 3 .c n Pc 3 4 o=a o.o- ° .`''— R2 c 5'S =ti < o ° °N 3 m oo c ",4. ^ v' E ou; C • c o M io a° 0 c _o F °"o- ° R o 0 o p ro u o - 2 d o o w < w . -g m ° O 3 c ✓.o. n w w rn E a 3 0 o 0 a . o c Ra . o o 'e so • 02 2 '3?o o caC K o gm y c o I M ` „° m 4 =EO n £ 6 w ,, . ^ ; " 2 = rn ° w N ,4 5-c 0 d t W=T , 9 g w� w D w. = r 3 o g °' (o`C y o S d ,a w w 7C” ° ''.N .° a a_-coo c • 2 ro 2 F ,. o-a. a:= o._. .o c°o _h o' 7 ° m w• S''= l','b 5' d_on.8.G. 5 w 0 o •" ��" ,.< y.0 3•o C: ,c.;. m° I. p °- 54. ' E ;I.S(^+5 (o v> _ v0i n O 0. ° mC w 3p, >,;-v ,; ,.(w,r4 J w c. e- �' ..�0 -0 ,c°, v, cg,--. 0 c yo 6•.n P--, (��. 8 9- . - E w E.m `< = o_m 0 ^ L. N x .m ° 3 Vti - .: : = < Fo g ,'., o � �' o. 'c w .1 ti n','3'c m d ( 4,io ccDi g- o N n h 8 m m. �, 3-.9 K ' 'o _or.E.= 1 iT G g- �.C a oc s o o ° w ."R N'^3 e y g m =5. m�c 0 "0 r; -C r. f T. ,c `" (°a c ti -5'o io 'a P_ti _'w, o.y cu c=o -,0, n .' x K o^C.. a c y'io 0 N a° ,q3;0 3 9 F �,' v = L 6.4-°,47i F = O : 2 G 2 0 0 my F. _"i N_ b S•- Oc ry ` d ° 0 ,'� E `< } v0i O 0• v, 5 f4 2. ^'3_O n'(� N 0'0 ° ° Ja °W lO (fti Ono IIM C C A W N O DmO Kn80 g, m0 5.w0 rnog`'' rom< w 30 w.3nibO 'hbcwo �-RO -o ' = V °u .:y O.�H ,_ F.8-2 - :a - ^3 9 cl y n 5 cow v C a- m.o R Ct1 p ti R - w Coo .. sc' 3w xwro U2 �-1 Do ° acD y3 C]T0a-m 8ow..,.o c3 m 5 t,i� n ,-C"'-,,8 R 2 w,a4 �.R w C�G " v' .9 `� .r�i t��o c,..89 O.° S, "+ �:to c R x F w U 2A "-: ' ' - w m _ �-m,N y = ,' W e c._, '0 , 60.-P y=.. ama k c7,- .0c Y o o w R o 0 Ow - w r4. oRF." a - c Pvo 8' y ›,1 vF ° ° =° 7° w ^v T D"< 8- 2 " N a`V w n w m 5 o.E 5 ` 5 .D rn m a 0 ^ 5. „ w o.b m °0 TxR Qoy o cc,- ^ o R C o.^c,N 2-8 = -° �':c =• 3 R -o 00. 2 8 to aw d° m g ° x -' ? ia a c m � ,2 P,-7. 2. Em.o e U nC . . a o o ° a o s g G7 R ' F ["o^ w R .R1s w C 7 c F w a w c0. O E rn 0 ` w c `.. > %. oo ,< n < B o __c-E o 5.E ^o ° ,<S•° c s • t';', 5.--, m y 7 r w { R b V 0_1, y=❑ - R C.o 0° C'c _ a O° n c Q n r 9';1' I"'-- a y.C u o W 2 8 58'62 r ' w 4 7 0- w . E ei- ^ T ^ t O-' ° a-. v � n - o 0 - "'y c w 66.0 m o ° W a N 7. O y y ?G m w 9 - a v -a S o, w o o. o C y oo -i c N R 7 5 v w R P 0 � w w N 0 N R N 5 v 0 Fi', 'Q E.g. y • O R r ' o 2 0 O •h C •°w ? a a a 5 (`-la , :'=',- E,w R ti y s o 70 g 5 mm P& i'❑ 4 p, o a Rp7 o a co c �,E 5 o•a t. a g g q• 8-`` 6! 'g R m'• G'. _ R 0 S .y 2 c O! , q-&,-7t ^ g r' a i c Z c ❑ 3 o-, ▪s F 2 a o.m " w n o 5 7,'c - m w y P c, -6 ,, a + < 'CJ EL`R+<°<cc G d Ty o y`° c o - w m n ^a S: -° < o 7 a c R o•#,g' < a 9 w Rp 5 O n' ,N R 2 • O o O V < p R ° n ` P J c p m ° n ''Z y o;ow y a c o g o o na 0 s a. . D�' " a . 5= .5- - m° N . c�•7 w p I . ° � c-, '-= ° O y'; 2 p v 80 F ' 2--'- , ^.- 5 a c).2 � 8 - 470- ,, <•2..° ,crn can c rn c a C ) 1-o -i '_ _ ° C R R 6 m r o ° °'_ ° ^° o'< °■ = Rc v ti 7 y a- a ° 5' o 3 a``a =q y oO m' ic -, 4 a� ' 3 '. w � m g `o c''m n- ll m . o u 5- o R x g - d _ o w ° o a u w s� w o 5.` 2 ' o n' c Oga- m x• GgR F, v^' � o V yR¢ , rt ,, : c o � � O 6 C. ' ' r d..G ? 'N p- y :. o' - w 7 E.• m n x a • 1 O� =(c w 0 ra o oo 50 ''' 2715P1 R O 5t `y m - °'< g O o ^J m o 7 w co v, ,c v° CO ° x+• 'w 9'rA.w8 8 o o ac o 7 u C S' w O K t ' o ? B a y u6,-�c° . g.—§',',' o-h C ° 'O?° r3 v aR P (2'< ° y "C c cvC 5 i x•; j j.n ; ' 5 , 8 m =w o O -y ..v E-6...g $ nrEg R ? a .-42,.. 64,1'E ac R nOo•ro=- /A-t- .., CI ''„ 0 m - �,m R _°c rRC R ° w o.m e .., .P_+' , b.Ci 'O ^ SR R 3 T. N F y n -, F 7, -' a 8O o Oso .w - -oa E c c ° R wRs LO ' ^< w m N M,. S o .c t oo y_° Zm �y gE o - E 2. u ^yob KywEgo oagt °' ii F F o w (n:+ R _s —. ,,p,„.. - 270 ua E ;; !.,c5,9,v c < w 3 �. M R o .N? 5, 2`-O Hffl 'HV Ri ' m N g.= n ' S M R e • w 1 f v $,=: ,� `3 ° ? 8F ° R °�, ° �� � d R`< o T a n 017 1:1'"4. TOU CO 0 .--vg.s,K6 -v F2'W4tv ,--," < '--2• =-' .-p-. (--) !„,,,,:j.. 2-g< .-6'-aii . 0-2F 411 30 . r.42-2 'F,SR R., v, ...- 5" =I "="2 "„, .,-'•-< 4- " ■,.■ --`' • • . • • = ,,,g.2.- K-2 - - ,,, ,-, K ..z`.5.. . , CA E . - cs-oP cD 2R -o .-1' r a - . gi ' ,' *:;.„...--;.g - ",_,r,- .P i§-•§' = '-• h -- (Th O e2.4.0.42,_ ;75Z.a,!-".7.,. .7, a 25: - SR „,. -6 .R.RF o- "2 ro - z e 2,g•'-';1.- g.`04-2--, '-'...< o ,,, . .,J,„,, ,8,2 , ..,=aa, a ,g ,--,-.- a,a (2 g ,§ 24 _ o., : --• -n a.''' "I a%.'=' 0 r`i 4= g g.2 - 5,,, g •-,,-0 •,,;,Z..-.,-,- -,! . . n .6' m ps.:55....,o _cao.o0 Ko, -„et ,, L-,. . 50 „oi.o R. R5.0 0J ,.,', '1■, )Ti 0 C... 28 (.1- , -6 (7;-. ..a, 6 k<-2 • z?...,...• P a 9P7' -.C. 4.4-0 '4•6 .6E2a2gp7 -p, §, g* 2 !=.• ' *• ' r7 .2.'. 0 'T ..A aV(32, 2. tp . FigRgq 8.@ .1,.. --0 .7, r-_•-cr.,.x,5,,,,,7 7..2. w F., - ,--o-400u.▪ =, = 4, b. 5 ..• .? 3 ,?. 55*. g ",=652-. i4T', &.'':." 2-'-. 7. ,-, 027.5•° o F.. ry In 0 2-,=,,,,, F E . 5.2 5 0 i-"' 2- •-,rt. .8 2 1_, g f 3 :-.•.F3R o cs1 ,•7.2.'2.--. 24 x°-LI 2.,7,8 a . 0 , a.a, -.4._a 5 ..%' 5' 027. zCi'l gl 6 a .`f..n 5-' •,•-B ; a Fi,°T5 ,`°°A Egi39.,,-5 g'-':ggg 96,.`2. riS.E35-Pi2E , .. " ..-,5. 5-. 0. •,..,:„, o o -. .„, . ,'‘2 , S , c, . . -. ,.,, ..._ 2g .g . § . . aa..... -2„g8; g R ., g 0 < gc<-152..gr,F45 50 Fg = 5a5•7Cg 8 c"--2.. cf 0-g'a,-ga2a-aa- E .,c1. 0 ..., 5g 4-,5 5'5: >. cm- '0= Q6' gg Egt '2' .7f. 5 ,•=L:Pg°:, ' 0 ,4 . 5 0, , _6, p. • ,0 a, '. r;- 2 . 3, w 5F='6 ',0 g':2.• g} c-4' grn ..7'1'.2.' '-',_,'' As'... 02 rg.:?,,, R., FQ ggg0 c. 0 -.. 8n 2 ...5. -,-, ,, p 0 , i'.70 ''' '''' gi'...57al..i ggP,- ..., 0,-. -- . ...g. _ , . - .4 mrA-' AR 2t2 E-2 '' r. i. ,,, ?: .".16, E -82- 2 g 2- ..,. g.'g 'g .6_2- g ggg m. 6 -, . - 0 0 0 -0 w xl 0 w O 0 -. R 0 716- •-•., 4,c" , o . - 6 1 0 rg !l-w m grt.E. ,gos , ..-.. ' 1.41111111S\: 2 o'',. c... -,:;.. &t,,55. ',"<"-• 5 ..:-..' -1■41111ir =x5xg- 0 . - . - a000m N P 076-57F:' g6g.to '4itil c., \ ._.. r.14 5C5 g F%.••p a 7. ;o122 ; gag-g-F .: c. ol,- Rog III . . 0 - -g 0 0 c.., , V ° °' n W F ° ° $. °. n d N O i i O S g7.a§. O RtD a ^ . o C = . 0, mn' g 8b ,`^,.7- 5 N iy ° H � fa° ' O•-. m 4 c . 7 O = . m . . 5 p o o I.,�t C I a mc � "7 °°ci'o�o m5' O FT1 ? g$ R E. .0 '8 `, 3^58,'', as O .. CD 0.A ._ _a.6 F ° n 11PHH o` �' a- . E'8 5i a'�c=w .o a £ F,,°w 5 w w 5a ° • t. 0 .- - g-y o ,E c 02 .0a gg ro v n o aO R D% _ ?yy a 3 5'd;ti v, , �w C o Oa S 'Q O N OC _ N .`! C O N ° O a'� O° E r 6 v` u ( v G Oy g, p. 2 7 P. y ( N b •y5' a o ° -7 °6 p P 0 O 0 -o� t r 1pb ON n a2E Uh r,` t?1 r-;11 ? a :�g1.:• •V 4- X 0-g- flU+ O t 0 0 0 DS N � 0 y °.5- .4 0. 6 A.°.ff.^ o 5.N°(D $ a woyw F ff pp °. d • p T 'Fe° r .-a -° a `n w m 9 n _ ' ,: rs ,..b1,a t° . N ci co 0a m o »Ga 4w ow, x „ a o n„ 2.< 0 so ro ,N, b a K o O C a '-� o° fig-' 8 m y a 5 o m a. 'O � ^R va ° ` ,o b c. a, o 'J w.o ..-,i. ? aq'Vy a 5, ,i& rF CA ° p.F an •n PA' G'`° m "3'' m a.-2 Q0- y F,� 5' 8' N 5•° H a `. . n d M ° ,4.a ° C 0 r rn'.'O .5 H • N C $ O O° 5OU Z.' C y x G W U ° .a o o H N N w.b • -0 N 8 =m *�� o w y a o 0 7 e H p 6-p A W q. g n 5 Q `� .'7" _ y Op L , T Hry °- T 2 w r.° GT 4-T m 0 g' n' ° H G.. Kam- k b rn ' L o C o Mtd CI T m n g- o Q 5 ao° „ HC) T H vi :�, d N dta �. 4dbG w2„ . „0,,, 50 ' y � m5 S'' W�mrt. co v ° '4 m y c . 5 °'� °' �b '-o 5 can rn n.°° coo .0 �} w iii _A p. ," o v C p b w `L ',rho 7 o m -i o. g. H C7 11L m , °„°.5 n cn Pr.m m• e 5 c. a A . , . o.o a - 7 R C o '7,' `a K `° 5b• c�IV o L7o #c n2 o V., 5 . n OC V w 9 w 4 H P,g. o a o �� � � rD o OG Q9 It a • Sla ow (7 O'T y E....-. C C d hj O A \ < §..:o V ( y p D H ,9 !I'. (] a N ^d fait o W n" c - F.1 !D c i N 5 E Q Q R. 1.-41 O •Jw'c O 16' o,0 °,R . °: .ng a vKc U1 Co T oc. o c m co s '9 a y h; R, � N 0 m D O � V, qn" t a. »g , Jr,yam N 4 • o 5'o �. 2 ob o $ o-.E7,- 0 A "3 H C)w g- E. E'.3 c P.c A Q q''V k N E a `3 or l V Cg4- 7 .D.._9, m 1— Of fn n �' ('(Q U i f,. d w`5 Pl`•" O & g� a w U l', 6-.• tit,, 6.* t. a' . D rn O y F 0. 6: R 5 K Cr) W D+ C S m I O o 3 c so w .... N w g f • '.g w w'p v p,t,' �7 D . to 0 A O o� /\,_______) (,,?, (-- W 1111 wD!iUiJIjIJ II j C N w�� m - ILOIHP$°-w D N,..2 ° m m -622-0,8 cnN O m O=7 O m �2ON Nj`< 7 Kcp X -i-,x m ° a C cp Q U ° m 6l A m j N W O!D) N 1 7 3 N a 7 0 ° .7« N o N fD U�� ow ° maa7aEqo�< . 2 c v ama N =N 7 7 5 S D a v .6° E.N N = 3. C N a m m .C.•3 .7-r c0,N 1 7 m ' a cU 7 U O.5,Fo j c0 N m CD < N 3 N w -5'. N N O c0 m m N ii •w m °•ji 7 9 a o30m y x.5 35am � � m T wo<« (D 7 _I a m 0 S (° X.m 7 m 7`n w`D N w al c) o w < O =< y ,o m o 1 a7 x f a c� 0 T 53 . m' m m ,m'0 N 3 a)-0 a< N ^ X -a-0 m .O( CD .O C „< ° N d 7 7 S 7 7 ?N N O cn m <D CD �'0 �•?.70-CD f.a) 0Om ..0 �? do330070 °m C vd ? (N N ='°' 0-7 N = N ]'3 m Q`< W ' 7 7 N m N Cl. m N m N 3.7 a? 9)-m K m -{• m N a N m N N N O &7 N E n-0 w d < a m ? 2° D -- f ID7ND7a°o °a'm3m ma aa5'v3F•o° 3 , m< ,<° m ��7 m 3`� QOM'" = ET'p w'0 S�.f amp � �_5 a"a-I`D m m-0 7 3 0 < d a ° N m 7 D N i C0 -2 N 7 m 3 q . O N 111 =� ' ° moo-•f m a.a 0 m c O O N x N? C O N iO 77 O N 7 O Tom 74 N g, cD 7 0 N 0 r-X W m 5 cD N O m 0 N m 7 N 7 0 N m 61 a :2 Z 3 U_ a --1 -, N a�' T U O T N m 7 m �� d m v 0. N N n 4 0 2 ciL ' a 8 c."9 J 7 O, <3 7 N 7 N 2 a CO¢l 7 7 ° �.o 7-0-7° m o m �' -^ 7 0.cn m m m m cD m m 7.0 7 a O K 0 D N 7 < 6'O m 7 7 7 a S 3 X cn n,_7 v N O N F N ° o'L< 61 c0 cc, K^ So .Fm 3v <iaD° m N <° °oco mm m DJ a m m O '° ^m V_7 O N"N A a c a, O 7 e, m p_ 7'cD (03 N v.. O_ a co O.N-'m 07-+.7 a•a O w�C 7 O a N <`< C z- of a, co N 7 T 7 ti CI N • Cj 3 c° (� [o <m O c0 m Ol a O m cn R-N O m a N m N-',.N N • 7 O O O < 41 N 7 n.° d (7n O • a O ('p O U =0 7 D m 7•N .N«0D3•x.SN °' On:N cD < "O 227 X a 7 7 a N 7 3 D P < 7 N m a U 3"p 00 N 3 a°wj d N_�N C w O.-p ° o ° .-..(.2`° �.E3 n o,.N 4s y O'*' R a c T .p' ""� 7 S CD O cp C m m N ° 0 5 3 T c0 n � 7 .A(0 m al_to 7 2 Cl fU m 0 a n=N`< 2� S Cl m m 0 to 7 ? cp .0 j cD N • o -13 cu C")ca a • n5'm n,,Y C7 oN 4Z' = a :'r`"� •' 3O .-, 50aa vt7 55C z v° T 9 l7 a ? bw� cm '5' c v o :..4-.:°°og. 4 O� �.`,: "" q.o c 3 T o. 2- 'r w_n5 n• g. ° y o i a o ff jr at -7 is ; R. n a. - O O Z < , g"a v `. ' g a o•,, o eff55.c't 5 fi X x -N ' ,o• = 66 ' m a c, . ° ,,q.5. g 5 S a w 5 y �a = a - " .. o-to-= n '4 q- x a /^ w T .J �� a° c�� 1 = ^ a S n ya v o g c . oT, �, c e E gw£-- ^ e m . 5"ra .- v 5 'o cr g u Ft 0E 5 ° c. F a a c ° - .,▪ ,) G- ° <L c, ,t"° n 'C " p'Otic 0 n » G, w. F C...0• O "C g0'. .z 'S° 96'8 ° - o o `"° Sm 5 „vxff -0 " ° ac o 4 o , c _ g a-- °. m g O o `4.° aog ,m g< m is o7 `y �. N �'p, S'o 0,5 = > x 4 v a g.g- o W 5- O n Co.�0• • uc §. m R c. o Z P m o ca €.D 2.O O O r• N ". .. G.�. `G ro Cs C N ,iy ' o . 0P- .. o m° 0 zo n6p g b a g„'� o rn 0 ., ° _.a v ".c m o w m 8 �D w N y 5 ab o g°� c ..4,, -.•g of v a to b < cEa bba'rigg m S' a T° p'° c.° ° n c o n m o' o my R Er '0 �o � ^ od° -6” w v m ° Z..' 3" 5 R'o. o _ o a 5 , w 5 5'° _m o w a c g 0 8 E i s , e i w °• ° n g ? a ro E 8E g c Lo o'�cE .. t�. N Co ° w ° ° o.m ° °. ° y 5 0,7_=ro A a 5 xg n ''1cY • o0 a 11I ill G q x n o p c, n ° WI 3 L L. o na as = °, S > °a O G 0. d � a, o 0 n M k. .96—,; g, m Ng a'i K O a R.'a °d p . p� ■°i A 5P, o -0 ,O o G 0 k4 x , m 9 'O-d H'a '`tl H ..� v ro o ° w d !JH zow Ut o n Cti. , 0...., o n o V y 0 f 4 a. �'n: , .,'�zA o� rn7 ' ' '6 0 t2: -0`g.0, ° 618 ° ^i1 o dyr° °a to �'h 2 ate' F m c a.oa2'7 •w f 5o m y o a m W a.o X K0 a u+ r� zs 5 n° x rf aa� G ° �xP w n g �5'd `1 c n('J .o ° (7 c F o o, o o b 0 a 0 o o 8 ,z,--,-4 o w w°w y x H co o ci o s�° ° ro o o °. m f1 a o a o k ao a 4. m O c . =n w n o ;o o- R-N 9'^-. v q C:y0 o w G o y 4 N 2 a.y °o g s R G ° ('.+ OQ n n L 7 O' ° vii d N vii y a n ° R B O O y 'C1 0 F•t�. '44.37., b�a rnb ��2,01.,21 .-10.. m o a.,-,:,.(2. g 2,- ;:-,-- , cp a ° ro o o d�wP� ° C�•o'o o' ° ��b a o p °doa' x CD C. w 0.° Vag P.° -3O o'O g '6-G C - .G)p C g, ? So- � 'T.,-, v'° an— � ;-n b ae'g O� �.° o ff. �8 Sa • k7 0 • • m 5 II;; ° �. io �g .�aka o g' 009 E° �'. ° �' 'n L. •°'�, ti " a 'v la ate' b44 a a ° n m rn m w C " p• •0 O 0 w N o� rc.ac w "'fig• 2-,2..v, . o c.., y �n<o Wye E ° 0 w o`s g 0-...- y �o E. . i.cg n:a y 'Mno 8 W1 ` 41' o g " .' � " � c g -5° w g..-8 p o p° o'p 5'n PF w �° a .i r-3 0 c0, fD a rb •b y il c' rs)0 o r. S 8",c-,. G n • h y 0- .n a a o 0 , • a O c 8 y wm `yO w '<O g b 0 0 �r5 c0 ,ti Q ° I .b r O H O w S 5 n ti ...5. • Om 1:�'' =m • . .-^ :-• .. ,y d C'1 ,-3 a >, o-``„�, ° ,'21. o o ' 00 H na'Pi �.3 _. 7 a 0, p.., [o m.z z of !•'-'.. ... Kr S .. o Q 9 .. C�C.R• 2 w n' O ce T b n 0 ;11 N .�- 0 d ° � 2. CO w °v 1� x o u� : Y 'O ' Y E. :=7.' * - '3 c•,' a 0 i, 0 9 w o� c h o = c ro 0 y o ` « `4 - n Y')' ti F.- o pP,-– o o ° Ed d"0t w. m.w w. ra v� n S �. w ° °n cF 0 n . �.m io F� • Dv ^w °. ° h ` � Z o ' o- 2 G 2 X n,o . w m, 0 - o k ^. w' a n y i y o\a r ^ � o n 8.a y - ° _ . n - c -=1 j m x . �wt B .. f') y "- B.ir, c ^ ° w < a,w' y y ^8 ° g ' rn ° m tm C c,0 R' C nscr° c o •�y 1v tom y y ,-,•, m a _ cao °ig w K6 . 0 g c N v`' z O o 7.w 0 2 a P C, w'O<4 oc �.a T N 2. r 5 x 8 N w a 6 V - ,000. N y b (J 5 y ' 0 m - 0 B m E g.g 8 -' Vrn �' w woo ,1 n.n.� 01 y.y s. 5 `� ." y'V y 0 5 o D`G n o b a - 0 m 'o.fix o = c-' ro c 0 ° ° lob= O 2 . x o v m t 2 c o a a-5m 3 ° o� w • t w C .85' ,--3 a y E d r r o J 'vm a' , s s s 3 _� . . • • . . . C7 A 3 o 8'2, dg. 2 o.- aP ]O 7 E o ~o °O g • _ N U y O N „5 .- in,n R 'N °Q. C7 G° 5 A 0% w•pm' .N.'8 S 4 S 'a °,., w o S p i cS V O O ° . x w O a ° O D 'CI O D O 6 ( D S=g 2. 0 0 3 V' th i r w o . =rn N ° ” O y io y y u, O rn 0.N . O G m H R a as a,^ o, — c. n. A a ° y 0 ° G O' a.• o c.& c^ 9:0 3, • 0 7.r,, '.. < 3 . .n- ,5 � ., r o O �'a-`G 0 L ''',1..:74c')'..2 a'. .O < S p, ., ' ti _-O ( O G ° ( J w '''0 .''' 9° O G ` g ', 5.,'-;“0. T o w F , C 2>0 ,y S G v -ca O O "° -as 9 c' 3 0,m [ (D o moti 0Q ° m R w 01'p, n ._w 0 i O- o o`< w o m f T5 .'b .'!-- D < m a m ' o f m ° 3 ° o 1<. cr o 0-, 0 A a a i .. w 0- _. N A 2_w ° P ° O. Q`< 0'O lr O C v 0- ";-0„. r " y C O'y,O C`C g 0 c.,t!.., 0 w � y O7C io w O ,a00 S 3° N ` O O No == i c a¢w ii .'. b -o ''.w c N c'e, m w rn ° _v d 3 c o r.� o o y w (z1 Y•° c 0 g i o 0. , 3 o o 0.M 3h .0 r:: :g o cc c( 0 m ro O x'G § 0.B S g 5' .V >V] ,c7) ,O G 2 7 •R c `<43 w C; D ° w G. 7 ] 2 c� 9 o w nEm.a d c o -U " c h '. 3 ° ° oco ° P °5� 'h w n° a ° 5'c <� = o m � x'4,1 q. - p " ". V, ` h ° ° ° n o ] 9 " ce 3 s , o 0.o ° o 2 � r C a ti °' 9 o 6 :4 O -0 w o _:S ' .y 5..-.2-- 3 ac _ a7 ° w o ^ w ° y9 d0. : 0 .w o a a G — n r0 .0 0 S n C» R. 29- 9 N '"' 5"-c,"" S D O < C � C O w. 0. ti m a m 5- A 7 0.o w o w•ti y'a o 5 5. co• c " 2 w 0'oo: o o a ° < ° 5. '' ..c n. ,-e w c ;8, = ❑ P-° w n O 4 Pf ° C i I N C o y 0 w N .v< wo 0, S o 5 o- , N p °. - 41/ d 'o _� . . O to o-°no on c mn ax-0 9.no 9 5 M-0 a. b "..G g co`J o -1 ❑-c0 n w ro 0• c t P' ° (o ° O 8 '6-8 O 55. 23 .5F°:` F., ,?, ?,�� G O (> 70.'w ,-`< .S o,n n_. 3.w'w _,0 3 x o < 2 3 < c w a on a, °'' o "V,,' w - o.; o x ' ° 9 3'° n. . o o. n.3 w s a•0 m C] 0 8 3 N" w o A .- 00 .' 1. 0 nj ° 2 g O t� e h .• -,y';<' _._° o.c.° o 4 o 2 "- st c. 9 rn w -, -On O °" w - G .^. ., O - N 9 9 9 O (n��^. 0 r ti O 2'4�O c'G.. Q..-,.. 1, .. O 4':1 (55-(D o HO,� -7ao a cD �,w ..,..• 0o CD w ^.2 ° 5'5 2 <9 ..=. r«'"' �, o o'w 3 ^.G ti w a 'co. o ' m f.o +'- e o " _.C 5 C n.5 o"5 N ' o ° o ° �'% a 2 2•al 3 o"m w: 00 = 0 6 h 0 < c n O . G Q'9 C,<N 0 f G n 0 .=A 0 0 5 al m y c 5-o' m c' 5--" A "f c w ` c c -o c'o 5 o a. '8 n rn o .o o ., m o o R w = t O o r c 7 .. . ° co g m = z , w e o F4. r 'L c = O N i0. , ..o =. X o. o n v ( o ..:07-4 ,2 O x c 2 c 9 0 E N n ° ° w< 2,n ° � '� 2" = O =v _ J 1�„ �-o v. 2 < v,. _y co o ^ o .9 -i 0•-.1 2..22 <0 y c; - waa cn r v. v d o o y c o .2 :- o 2 rn n ( C o 0 _ ? -3 v b ^ ° ° '= a o oo „ r. 9., ti a ' Z 2 69 Kg ,-5, ° ° ".w c 3 c o o o o 0 n ' w. 2. S - 00 ° ° =,a r J " n . 0 b N w _` 0 9 c, ,-\ i R a Y y o °.o .•c w p 7. w o c M 8, m ^ 0 ° o,z i ° . v0 , 0 0 A.o w lb — 0 a w F ( a =“ .� w W � R =' n F ( C x 0 56'X, o O •. w n c•- 0 .' - 0 o — -0 ° - '° 0 w 0 p w a v ( ^ r 3 -m <CI -po ' '0. o 5 m g a 5. 8 w c ° .•(X a _. ° r n( w w 9 w 0 o = w r . E' io •y -O= .< p ° ° o 0 O c „- r, o °'-0 c , ' (pi,0 o a o w w �'�'G , x ° o 0 o C7— G ° .. w o _ . '> _ w .o _ ° co coo o` ,,-..,..D. a o i2 3 ^o 33 w - o' 0 8 a x0 2-o- �° o•H_ x a w ,m oo „c .0 ° )O z - ° rn N w c c ° w .. � w w• 0 0n N Q ' n < '4 F - O P '' (D O.N G.2 N L S 0 W 0 ' ° G co C ° ° ( I .-I;- w ° 0 wf n `f; . F F. w . 9 , n W 0 III ) F X -.? ._ O w a,0 �'w I. U �. o va) W n n C7'_'l v 2, to A w N _ 5 f_".C `5 C A • 0 0 o O ('] n o 0 o a C1 m 7 -c r, D r'R v _a .Ni cam° E. w _ _ g ..- o ac . = c = p p y p : - o 3 o c o < cr 'cFp o , y •c naJ° cn o ^ X w ° " co to 0 O 0 o 0. n O 7 5.y (JO N F-`6 m .5. 1 n. n -`< o < ^^ a m R;:q 8 g va ° : az rn w y C/l `G o G n r 0 C § O ET g- G. .' " 6 m 80 .• _ L a h m G Sc = N C 'g- • ` . S O ' ti u Y. N 3 ti .5 " " Np T w ° III y O w O 7 S 0 �G y I a.0 S o a 2 h 5 g' 6-.. N_ m w F a � f'n ° y < ti p p O n o 00 O n a w P., " Y O 00-. " F W-, 0. 7C o g o g w "as ° y m W> W y�, O , '3 R o o i . o " ° 5-- o'2 " R 0 a •- a 5 y Rr O SD S o F °- 0 ° T m • N § 8- L% c° d 8 y n O o% y,5 rn p 1 a C p d " K g 0 < .g•p: - w liy G . 0 0 5� v uiu a rn ri y ps a n � 5a m "a " m� rrn V R. o m . :; v°, ,. rn'°° a o 5 5'$b owe o �rn °. 5 0° oa " " o a Py m " ° 'p y 0 0 Hr,. hw a H ` " :' o N E.O .-p.0 c7° a °< w N w n z`< . " F', m oa c9 o C m 5 ° � o o � o a e r " P w M q o- �(.`a o' F p w wa x a c o O 2" b o w.o -• b b`< `G 8. g IN g co a p° D o rn 5 , co " o-o . T 2 0 "o < 0 a CD.o C O tS a o`r a o w a a g " S.c o 5 0 " . - 00 ❑ 5 ro o ga oFacM 2Xw'4-" rn4n 5-0 " 8Ey rnp- o ,, o �O r "'`5. ''.a O0' " Eli.. °. p w. w a m R.R y,W" 'iY .s,.... o P-x .°» ° ny z:°.-o-a s 5 �a O- a o a P•P.'^ a n ° o p '°-n w �S°' O ° =-.°. .a w-o°T o `< § y " o 0 5-F w ° o 2.w y �3 ;y ■ a •G0 " ° ro ° 5 a ti w o 5 o 0 'd w-gP'i C w " w rn° " p a s '-3 w ga (° ° r,y p.X" .w. "O d Pa' „`O' " N ^ R• n O O O 0 p�+ " " H 8 p.�•a x d l °•a g'7'P 2.y.4 1:1 a ,Dry^'- "3 ti 5 �F p- rn c rn o f " " 5 F E x °- v° P- °' o ; 5' 0- y w " a C O 0 m w p.C .w+ - 0 A 5'•a 7 ° a � o C c P. ' 'O w w C.w- E. °-" .-',, ti a " y i c v x w O ,. 0 a o r o`o pw y 0 w • p n _`c A o `, `pp . 5• 9 °, ■5 h °. ,2a d' u O �N < 0 P. C. 0 C `- H o ti 'O � HH ,U o vc�8 • . w CY . ° i yy ao 0 0 w o p w -oc =`D GI T.•'3 O C°P11 W ,,, c v' ° ��wob oOod NO n A o .oo,s O d .y,.,-- a a t=5 g0 0' p t-4 o ? t' < w . m�,4,' t p_ c7 . P .- wP � J X c qA. � `, a a • Cycyy tam]° N°°.y.9 y N 'r-#. o v ° o o rn o p M`a o °e ; rn wrn 'a n o cr . o m a , o . c, '7 o < ' � .0 . WW oo o• p 0 P . ? 7 p G 8 ,1 N 9. '°`< .^� - " o n , O N 0 x N o o p . 9 co o O ° ° d PR• I°' p � N ,c;,-- {. � ' � 1x P " m 9 w 11111 ocp 0 o Y 7. fn U P'F '6.'.c� 0 w "no w M 0.,F,:- w CY_, , 0 w'0 w ° xo - cn o o CC x a N w. t, o o o E ns o L P 0, Pt-(g.w w C. 4 0 0 2. h., y 2 6',0 °,7y w'`wG P 4,)om gS°C. K x 9. ° o"w , O 0,°•-" a aO o w b - 0 8 o 5'•o N H 5-P'.y• rn m Ad o ; wo ° o rn w . y 'd 'A ' G _ ° w §-- - 26g• C i RP'V K s0 uv 5 o o a C, � o 4") o o rn to N b 0 0 x w < b 'o 49 p o p- a 2 E.`P .,, ° o w xrn M c° d° P y 0 x • o . 0. 0, rn n.IIa < t 'QSg ow '. a. y f o 5' ,- -p , x Nd' o o ° rn To, •n a� " o' o a v� .ro y �°�• o 5. y 8-w , . ° . �P,� 0om _' C o p N w 0' inn w n P r , v , N 4 <r5 2° . v E5o WLI ❑.ma °0 02 o roPP w o y o o o 'o . o .-. o 0 O. o a. El ,,, . O 0 M # a y 5 G.l ti 0 ❑' O 0 - .n P N O ,g, ..P.7 F ^ g 2 y S N R °°4 NN y❑ P � x .1K FA-agff- �<1 5�o aa rn °' h 08 gaw o. 0 P- `° N° o ° E E =° rnO ° qq� 4 �� °',w a < o a° 0.v, o , m ti 0.7 N,, ' . 'o c n o w"0❑-w ca xi �o 'a-0,‹ o 0 0 T 0 w°,8' .' 0 p' °� 0 w w rn 0 O• .1 ‘ 6:-g. g —,74 zh5.?, ga , 85 > ° co tr.v o\ b n p u 71 M o .tIH lJ .dcn o oG ? �_v ? w �\ o F-° ,.3 wU ' vao a. g E`�P =; � A o• � o o h 8 . rx o `,1, ° aE m IH .0 o .g-. o M 'v - E. ay co a> ° m w Q Q O p, o'❑ O U n 5 ❑ a °<P hs C7 o•r 8 o C p a rc o 0 V. 'o 'v "r t7 CI c q n ,5,--,a C x, C ° 5"y C `°n t.1 0 R Ho 0 5 S° 'v u m M ag-o �. °p w w � N E. �g 00 , ° n m° o w p o.A.w ^ N 0 ° cu E w0�r. 0 c° (D C] H o P.o *�' rnon -° °, 0 0 r, o,1- ,,,. 7 ,KK O °•o 5 E YX o " o m ❑k 2, a X P i id °x P u"Q o wH o' g-oII 0° ro Ero ox ono y * ..xti x °+ i a� • wa tfi o o R.5. P = wy -, P" a § ? PI cg Q 8 $ ° x R o -p 8 y Sc &° -<,� °,P " R. Q . , r • a g y 0 L"°co ° ° m °❑ c`„ g "6. �' c a -a “ A.,P. g o G o� oo Ca, 'o �o may- c4O„ �`wc 0 o ag o ao 0 M 4.o C ,a w C °0- a. -o � 5 p � 8 :�� = bo ' E.5 ry� c —5- ato' amT or a" tr tx7 z� 5' 2 a yb F ag 4 Nq 5 ., 1, 4 ''-c''.' g g 0 o 2 ' w ti s° 2 ac N m 4i ,2 m c ,, n m w ao U n, g 0 �"m'5 ,< 5. cc". ° 0 0 0.n 0 w E1 Z(' C4Ky�3 ., 000 o. y p x w 5a a a- 2.x,2' w 0�' ! z o �° q G b° w� ° P 5' co° ° °' 'i° w ° n `dro T ei :.C ulI 8 5 5• m rx ro$.GU U.e ° b7x g.° o5' HV,�jr" MB ti ryy O - Oo 0 -4 ,,p3 o I 0.�. o fD ' 'o g Or o tn.-3 ^' coo h'C7� Eo-� o 2'i, �.o g p,d°" m � g . y 7xy"j0 0 �r o' S II < ° O K b F7 Viz r. o E* El' �° `'. as K . Fr" o .<.E. ° o c w 4)m00 Z•P. 05-1 lifl o p 4ti,g y EO a ° o P P. ° y Q p 0 �K ,'rr .op G � 0-° .+ '0'0 0 0 0 m g 00X; O fE 0- b•x 0, 2 b .00. ,,.. Dot `a C 7 c-)''I ro 'd R c°, in`D y �° �oZ p ° to 0. ° o o °o o' ° 5 �0p w° 5 v0 by'a .P. ,. o.E cr P o r #. ° C�z- g: o o ° o p " I o N _ ° P H ill 0mQ l G ° 5y r° r�, y g � oo rn P N 1 =� ' O sal rd P-.1 .. 2 . a er ro o ° a' a y i ''18 41‘q1 'o nt °o � y ; ; . 3 o °ov p � HH yO' 4 G ° ° p ti III o Ih n ti °--,r. w y q E•0 ; o ° v P a rymo P y ° N r o o 5 o o C 0 0.. o 0. T ° 5 2.24. 2 ° 4o m E mg 55.5 0 & 5 g° w 5 51. a ilw .b tP . , u N y ° ` N5 °m E � ," b l � 54 O 00--w .,d N. ° p rs=6-3 13 ..0.- a o •o c. 0 O -„,, y c owe 0" a g ?- g5 oB. 845 g. 8 ag VE d w OE P •GS p 4 5 4 ro . 0 p . ° * � E, I w ti-P4 C, W C/j ° O � •'G O . rn 'O w P ''b fi k- P ER O. ..y.w_ 804 0 ° p VV,vp o'wo_ ° T3 C17 .0 '' c7 O P�' m K W8 F 1.i °°13 'cp, O ,c°n 9.P °g pp.4 �5 � oT° m �o r� Boa S ° C3 dro 0 5n w5'-' �•w cwt”. . m oo c neb ,,.(a.8 ma :.' N sa. E 5.3 �° w 0. a$,° 5 aro ° o o '' a 'd o y 5• S �' g a 'U 854 g n G e '0" 2.m ca, .' ° o R 9 `o°. w 5cy o0'� E' if a ti < ro ` c°' rF", A.'0 59 9.. .E w°o•• g 025 0 50 G ' '° ° ° a ° C'C O g' a• "O '4 M n � "•x n� yw w OP , ° ° P wn �yy 5 ,°. qy c0° w 1 III p4 0 } � ! Fes, 0Pw h° �i °° g a o 5 y y., k5 O N ... 4 E N FA A o Gn a ° P E 7 E wi Vgw .°oa oo w C `,- ° ge'o, B < d g °gti P p. g - Ha gr:g7L E8 P. ,''' n w .o ° P 0. O� 5 74 m m '0 5"11-01:0 pu200\ › , ° f_ E o s ° t7 O n D� a r Tff.3 gag H g p ° y a y "04. . - 0 . i50.;' ,1 P 0 M' " � -'°go..-3 .� w� .a x �. o �r n ��O Gyy s g O 0• O w C °g 5.o o P- i° ° ° c T ° G aC 8„ O � g 5 r co :r a d.o � %IU .' ° i o o �? m •? ' w o 5,. 0 o, 0'<n y c n -- 8 o n °f f', � wy b� C: 45 oa �ya aw a o a y pT. li a.w g52 . wro w w Q e), g _ ° '-.2.4 v�"i rn w C pp�. p- • M° A.Oq ° C a a-°.i fn 7J v�E.° g'C o- p q•o 4,1 . 0. 0 C. pa, u ` y ° '`� n ti0 'O I o w p 5 N w n a g w R 0q ¢ a r' n O 0 x, 8 88,9_5.� - X•w ° c 1.4.8 °o � c o ' me ,- o p' 5 a $ < N o v ,-a 0.P oo O-,o m C �.g D o • 0d 2I o v, • • • • d g0 o o... ro oy, xw H �a'H xH o H'9^n ° rof0i H fl tH «-j H C) -7 H co co a. a n n S w 7 V a o a a w w ° m o ° H t=- c. ,<< 6 b W g � Gam tr x °w ' f H z tzo zO C 'w _y a'o ° ' h7 a' ° a 7 n „O•] y ° c w n m � ° ` O n r° o ;?ro a$ h o .y. , a a v ° pO c0 ° aa n b a i � w G (� h° w a ro 47 C h z y 0 H C ° D cr a. a x a c, y g - `C S cr x ° a 9 n ,o 3 ii n rn w w t j ca C w o o 2 w < 'a o H t.a. - o ” n n z O a, R `< 5' g 5. a o v,• - p m , o 5 z ^ o ,wC °•a .8 m g-n " 4 w , O'H y -.. 0 cC V K M o i ',4:.° v T.,12.—0o -a •-0 z.- i 0 H z H w ti ro n ,„c z,-.3=0 ro , G cg:', o� a 0- 2 w ��. g H41 ' ,MH 0 � y F4 nw Ho 0. 0M . <, h O 5,g •,d a O n G. n z 4 o -' .1F a O 7 o -n8 o < t7,O w P m o o - n '° r • .o O c , <°'" o C ° XH w ro 0`87I8 C, �' roZ a a as a � • T a 0 r °0? xfj 0 c., . . • . . • . . . 0 III 0 _ � O ti—i11:fl. ° „ w 50 a£ O rnv O .:5, B 5 O ° O v a C1 O y o c N R o w o co Q'w P K a q w H w Oao kg .rni C Gi O �' Q'O w w N S N C� co m 7O .ro ° o m ° t. R o o o n a a . .°n c x' ° Ate_ ,14 N o -n a rn ao S v o to Z O 5-5-.-'0.0" N2 4�ro .- o y 0E.5 `° m O'N 'O. ° C C w �/' �' „w., (� `° W X''i�' W d ',1" °•N N i 7Z n O° ' g;•'C 57 n e N. i5,'-'1‘<R P, g n e ., G 5 . w. 1 (j ._ . < b .p y ( ; F Q < P- c' m x B 5 x E ''O 5m° ° ..'5. -- Y — ° ° 5.E ° ,0q c ° g oy0 5m o at ° °° a o a ° y < ° ° w Q a r m- a v td rnc 5 o o o y w 4 , a 0'-8 o 4o ° c ° N n .8 % 8 n OU ', - m°' E 8a 0 < W c a &� YPg ° o 0 2"1 o a w ro a R-- ,, 4B E ( .Eya- ga ° E5. ° g' Fwag c . y o x 2 a o ° ° c. d Y o 0a ^, 0- a 0- 9.k 5.�< - R o2 K . w .o ° 5. a o N° � a a8 � ac o Pry -2 c° � a o a o &° b a o a,9. c0 m a-8 x. M m 5w ° a a b m m a d N o o °a a s o °^ ° o, y 5�5 o a' w ' 1 i ' < L.b- A8 °. 4.— ..r, y o., ti . a N g ° w a 0. . ° p ° p w pr . .,,, 0 - a g.ErggW , o Q a ` b rt j w rn W 57 g ' O'Q° c ° ° � wa� �2 w � s � v 5 0°a � o 5 q • -0m xm �.r 0" ; to C � v a m W a g•tb -a-Z • • • • • • op. t+7 v r-l . c t f a<v t 7 2 2 0 O K. 'g'-;q °•° o--i P,o l "3g ''', ''811 O -50 a.x'ti go H '5t8 V,m ro y I- 77 'a f � a 71 0 7✓ v ° p .. I 4 H '.H H a.a ryp, ,< m co .? E R a ;,ma y. 6 .5 805-r ., y z a z § R5*,5'77 x a,° O ,vow N 5'z ° a °E o '5 C, o �•v, m ,g o�.°.�� g co, .' p 'Tl c�j.- P ° WOw co ‹ k&, q ; 5'5 o,0 1 .. ttixl g o rZI fn 0,c4 3v, ',; 00'� Vi O° .o.. ci 5 a�y N x-e y N a w ° 050. a r4 V] P.O c j a'0 00 a O w 'tr] .,'° '04 'ti .a < cn ° as w 5•w L, a t. 5.0 °.' B ° C oN H ° .,,x.5F. o °o ° a pro o ��p a �o°1°, E - <.0 c b ° ti G °w by 6..- m o oO 5-�B T', 5. d4av y 0 o j' y r 5: s s - 5• .d C a-. a a as 5•.t 112. 8* ° o °o o a _. ° ;, ',..p; B 3 C y a 5w° r? X° P _ x 5 8 r5. », a ' n t7 R.- -. a< n g g z O w 5,9,9 P4, .a O o'`°›q s av 4' �.y 0 -', : ro w ° ° c5n ° B 5 ° ro rd , Ems, tic mo 5. U7° ° w ° a n ...HE. '� rn ° wF_,,, a ,' c, daEg�ti nIU wo — E ti a. g ,y . O • x g ° ° ,, § P c b a .§,aAL C1 ,m F' m w .a c � E °ril ..p 5 �a n ap acoao4 oo 3 . 5- P ° o.Oo w •R CO * ° � a ° �.v o c rx 5 _ 5 ,7.,< w O 'o gE,,, < !� Q ° t? ) O ¢o y � 111 aao M �"a 'w ea c n w c m g .a 5 w o. 'g M . ° a N o- '2'g v, go '. P ?.. s (: ,.1 CD 0 xlii W N v o .a w N r. N EL O • G • f '� w�w N( f9 gww p, a .._).=_-...F�- ^ P. . V g!\ ' '� N ❑ N O P 05 O°a° 0-,E', .E_' N y to o .. io m rn a m o a 0, 5 C.o b F ", 0 0 Cn o `e ° a a a o < N o 'b 11 - '7 co rn ° ,„ w, 3 y n--- 00' ' • o m a' a-a 5•' o' m g. < w p m Pte' m `C @ .°e, ,.> Imo-.'. 'O w '3 O 2. .- +p P. o ° w o P ° n n. CD r oa w a _p .? �, n a v o �' ° c rn. o 0 0 4 a c°, aw • O Wp� G O O 8 R N ° p N Oy en 0 R a a n " y ry w C o a o c a E. a w ° °01 n.0 a 0 00, c p 7 co L1 n r y w c `o P. ..` ° a.2 o 0.. "` o ca.t nm in pp 5 co w N C w ° o o a c. b o c CM < cr g 0 m o° °x.5 5 0 0 C o 0.o 43 . 5" 0 ? y a �' .,0 2 1 • • 1 118 Y w w u 5'ro y F' O 'a ': gqi ° j 1 2 N o °. rn e a.w ,5 N <$ dtH '4.° .� a. o a y - w a o 8 r (n H ° '5 ao ° IIH E k m v . p• d o) rn o -E. O t" Vi CZ E. n w „�„!� °°�o o a `� rn ° o .p 5'.n H 5 n y Q 1 g i� w o o , n t7 5 o y_ g y § 2 w 7" O C p n. Q\.�`� p m °`o N '° ° " N"N p �O (c °i O b y Cam] .O r-. 5 w ppO w 'au a bray < o- - w ° a u§". 40 Pr 05 -3 fl.p ° o ro 2.8 8, c0<o 1 0 op.. P. N n. b a., 0 o C O O ,a•'�-, O , m f Y M q `. S ( too, g' p O M ,':,3 > xZ h 2 51 p o y 5 H°, y m o PD o m w ',� x ti N a -o 1- OH 41° UI 0,v -0 R LII o o w o y a ' G 0 t7 r a f ti Iii w a a C • ' y o w y x UI a w U ao e S.5 K CC m 0 �_ E ;e G oa ti ., E ,�G p o ,d. av °.w ., o m rn --O PL. `w n 0 .°d . 'S 8. N w '5 ° w y a M a -0p ›, o rn9 0 b a8' � ''. y� ,t C to cr o, .. rnz II1�p v p oW < It : o m °� y y o ff o co r rn Ill co A o N tw w .wza, a, Ill o 0 S 0 g b rn o 1 .ro co IIH o l7 o∎n co p Po o 0 g l]c °'1 J '�' a.° 1IH .°.y o y 'T' .°+,d Cn iL 2 �.M i oo < o.��° F o Or F. 9, N ° ° P ! (n ^N ('w. 5 d N ° < 0 N-- .,o rn w o .- w • 0- O. c':m' gam; 0 b o ° o w 0 — r <'a 0 x n o° N rn ° °A o S �� ° Ins'ti x HI ° 9,'' lit O C .3 y N W ` ° M `<2, '...'4' X o 07 rn G < -y • Q1 ) 0 as 30 ■ n 0 cV y 0 co T m_ II co C p }.d ,P'• • g N O Of W H • , . , . .. • - . • . . - . - . . 0-0 • • . .• - • - , . . x`5,1 . . . . . .. . . • g ' • . . .. . „„.., . . - ,N \: . . )- ,,, . . w „, w . fic=- a,t, . tw. . It U c'.gfl c.), k .5 .° . Kr--g -g...q. • -=< `' ,g - a 1 1 '63 • V g.g,, gig,. tw .. lk. 1 1 a . • I I0 . • l'a • - t-,, ---.,. . .. 0 V...,4 . .. -11 • T4.,„ig HO, 1: 8 41. . 1 ...-: F,,E hm : .- ri., ,p k g " .4-•-:" 11 - sail g ill --A, ;. - • . . 0 77, . 1 . . 110.E .1. .zig `i3 '01, '1: J Li- -'t'12 toQ :_. R . 0. _ rli' Q s. ''4 c' Fi.g.' , “I' . ?_,," ,a- g ti 9. ..N 4, . .51. 5- c;, 1 . c,, ,' 0. 111.K _1 44 411 00 t/V. - R • Egr4 -m. , - .g g..9 - . .3,., t4 f W'§ E t. 0 ay.. s.. a , t4 Lz_ g>_ . %, ,, g . er, R, -A.,i) ut•-i •0 1-' Oa plg, aWr" .a. , R, ,0 la sI . 8a 0, .-4 by-, cy • 3 6 t-i . 8. ..,11 g ,.... r4 0 pOTI a - 2,PR 2 3 1 d P- °a ' . 4 A s. • u, in,: `-c'rt.,9 R. 7. ..--.,-,..-4..: „.2 - . t•-, <,, r_.. . -• ,,..- ti:. a g a a R'8.• ..R.gg, w ,.11g1. -9 41 8. s. iti- ti. --I ga. III 4 . ..-.,1• 6 ;- -.4 -- g.L1 ° -0,1 ,t. - 1..a. v .- • e_ 1%1 4)1 5 — 1. sE 0. R tav E0 23 ' g: •Et 9-' " 'g t- _., w, -1 fi- 'e ' ' Wa R1 - . p- . wo - - 6- ato . V. ..g g, • 5 0 ' . . Pg. . - .- 2g. E_ is.. Eat — .g 'd gr, a • . - g KI-', ti4P- ./4 II `2 16 ' g ' ' P t—-.0 V. W. „i g a • • ff . • . ,,,,. `,, P-. 1,11 . i 0- . . a2 : „. H ''' g.V ; . R..- i 0.. -P • - . . . • e .1* . f , Eric A. Johnson m: Todd Clarkowski[Todd.Clarkowski @dot.state.mn.us] t:. Monday, February 13, 2006 10:35 AM 0 jsoderberg @1 stnewrichmond.com; (dean @achp.gov;jbsmsteve @aol.com; marymccomber @aol.com; rwiebusch @cgstl.uscg.mil; srussell @ci.stillwater.mn.us; hollinsheadml@comcast.net;jaykimbie @comcast.net; rebecca.wooden @dnr.state.mn.us; humris @dnr.state.wi.us;Adam Josephson; 'richard.arnebeck @dot.state.mn.us'; terry.pederson @dot.state.wi.us;thomas.beekman @dot.state.wi.us; larrykennedyl @earthlink.net; laszewski.virginia @epa.gov; 'cheryl.martin @fhwa.dot.gov'; nick_rowse @fws.gov; hlieberman @ lieberman-nelson.com; dennis.gimmestad @mnhs.org; sarah.jordan-beimers @mnhs.org; tom_bradley @nps.gov;jplaskinco.com @prodigy.net; wbemdt @sbcglobal.net;tramberg @scchwy.org; bmcmahon @universityunited.com; daniel.j.seemon @usace.army.mil; empson @usfamily.net; rabernstein @whs.wisc.edu; bethdiem @yahoo.com Cc: davidf @co.saint-croix.wi.us; Tom.Lovejoy @dnr.state.wi.us; kassandra.walbrun@dot.state.wi.us; robertnewbery@dot.state.wi.us; Keyes @ecr.gov; jerikson @keystone.org; mhughes @keystone.org; cw.malick @mwbac.state.wi.us; email @townofstjoseph.com; theresa289@yahoo.com Subject: St. Croix River Crossing Project*-Water Quality MOU Attachments: water quality mou draft 2-9-06.DOC; StCroix-PermitsTable-25jan06.doc gi HA-: water quality mou StCroix-PermitsTabl draft 2-9-06... e-25jan06.d... Good morning, ase find attached a final draft of the St. Croix River Crossing Project's Water Quality orandum of Understanding (MOU) and the permit table attachment. Illis MOD is being sent to you for a final Stakeholder review prior to circulation for signatures. Please provide your final comments to me by Friday, February 17. Thank you. Todd J. Clarkowski, P.E. Area Engineer Mn/DOT, Metro Division 1500 W. Cty. Road B-2, Roseville, MN 55113 Phone (651) 582-1169 E-Mail: todd.clarkowski @dot.state.mn.us 1 e , MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • AND EDWARD T.JOHNSTON • This Memorandum of Understanding is to serve as an preliminary agreement between the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WISDOT) and Edward T. Johnston (OWNER) in regards to the possible removal of the Buckhorn sign located on the OWNER's property located in Sections 27 and/or 34, Town 30 North, Range 20 West, Town of St. Joseph, St. Croix County, Wisconsin. The following stipulations are agreed to in general and shall be negotiated as specific items in a Construction Permit to be executed between the WISDOT and the OWNER: This work will include removal of the individual Buckhorn sign letters, all supporting foundations, and all electrical connections serving only the sign. WISDOT will determine the appropriate timeframe for the Buckhorn sign removal and will coordinate these schedules and removal activities with the OWNER. The removal work, once started, shall occur in a timely manner. The OWNER will allow temporary access to and from the OWNER's property to WISDOT and its contractor at no cost. WISDOT will restore all disturbed areas on the OWNER's property to conditions agreeable to • the OWNER which shall include restoring the ground to its original contours,replacing topsoil seeding, fertilizing and mulching all areas disturbed by the Buckhorn sign removal activities. • WISDOT and its contractor will be responsible, at no expense to the OWNER, for securing from any other organizations or agencies, including, but not limited to, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources any permits that may be required to conduct the Buckhorn sign removal and associated work. It is the understanding of both WISDOT and the OWNER that there will be no financial compensation by either party for the work and tasks described in this Memorandum of Understanding. If the St. Croix River Crossing project is not constructed, removal of the Buckhorn sign will not be done and it will be left in place. • Thomas 3 Beekman,P.E. Date Edward T. own Date Wisconsin Department of Transportation Property Owner • • ECKBERG 4m, LAMMERS ►,i`1 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1809 Northwestern Avenue, Suite 110 Writer's Direct Dial: (651)351-2118 Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (651)439-2878 Writer's E-mail: Fax(651) 439-2923 mvierling @eckberglammers.com www.eckberglammers.com June 22, 2006 James Lammers Robert Briggs Mark Vierling Thomas Weidner Susan Olson Mr. Adam Josephson David Snyder Metropolitan District Sean Stokes Minnesota Department of Transportation py Laura Domagala JosLaa Christensen East Metro Area Manager Timothy Brausen 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 9-7 rte, Re: Trunk Highway 36/Stillwater St. Croix River Crossing Municipal Consent and City of Oak Park Heights MOU Provision ;\' ' JUN 2 6 2006 Ah Dear Adam: Following up on our discussions the other day,I would suggest that the MOU relative to the municipal consent provision be modified to provide the following: "1. Municipal Approval. The parties have agreed that this project is subject to municipal approval under the law of the State of Minnesota as it existed prior to 2001, specifically, Minnesota Statute §161.164 through §161.167. This project received conditional municipal approval from the City of Oak Park Heights in 1995 conditioned upon the then existing Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Transportation and the City of Oak Park Heights. The City and the State have agreed to utilize the pre-2001 municipal approval process as has been confirmed by the letter from the Minnesota Department of Transportation issued on December 17, 2004 by Mr. Rick Arnebeck relative to the project as modified, now being resubmitted to the City for lay out approval. The parties further agree relative to the municipal consent process that both the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Oak Park Heights waive and release any right of appeal otherwise provided them pursuant to Minnesota Statute §161.164 and that the action of the City of Oak Park Heights in reviewing the submissions provided it by the Minnesota Department of Transportation relative to final submission lay out shall be a final action,not subject to appeal or review. Consequently,should the City of Oak Park Heights disapprove the final lay out,the remedies to the Commissioner of Transportation shall be only those provided within Minnesota Statute §161.164, Subd. 2(3) absent the right of appeal, those remedies being: ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF 3 VIERLING, PLLP Family Law/Divorce • Business and Commercial Law • Criminal Law • Personal Injury/Wrongful Death Estate Planning/Probate • Real Estate • Land Use Law • Mediation • Municipal Law • Civil Litigation Mr. Adam Josephson June 22, 2006 • Page 2 1. Decide not to proceed with the project; or 2. Make the modifications requested by the municipality." Please review the enclosed and after you have had a chance to review same,feel free to give me a call so that we can discuss same further. Yours very truly, Mark J. Vierling MJV/sdb Enclosure cc: Eric Johnson, City Administrator, � Y • City of Oak Park Heights • c,taNN ne ti, Minnesota Department of Transportation oFrRa ,�� Metropolitan Division • Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 May 22, 2006 Eric Johnson Oak Park Heights City Administrator 14168 Oak Park Blvd.North Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Re:Use of 2005 HPP funds allocated to city for"Cut and Cover Study." Dear Mr.Johnson; This letter is in response to your March 31,2006 letter concerning the city's use of the High Priority Program(HPP)allocation in the"2005-2009 Safe,Accountable,Flexible,Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users"(SAFETEA-LU)transportation bill. The identified funding in the bill for the study was applied for by the city,through Representative Mark Kennedy's office. Your questions are repeated below in italics and then a response follows; • 1) What is the general timeline to expend these funds?Per SAFETEA-LU in 2009. Can any of these funds carry over beyond 2009?If not, how does Mn/DOT anticipate using these funds within the timelines? A: HPP funds should generally be expended within the time period of the bill;however,I understand that they can be expended after the bill but there is no guarantee that the funds will still be available. 2) How exactly may these funds be expended?At the time of legislation the City's requested language was for `further study of TH 36". However, the actual language in the bill states "Cut and Cover". May a different alternative be examined other than the Cut and Cover? Further, what are the parameters of the study, i.e. if Cut and Cover should prove to not be a viable solution, is there latitude to look at other options? A: The bill's specific language is "TH 36--Stillwater Bridge cut-and-cover approach to river crossing..." FHWA has quoted Title 31,United States Code, Section 1301(a)on this issue with another HPP project when asked for clarification. The section requires that Federal Funds be obligated consistent with the statutory language authorizing their use. I have discussed this study and with FHWA and they have affirmed that the dollars can only to be spent on cut-and-cover activities. To expend dollars on other concepts will require a wording change in the legislation that better describes the intended use. 3) Is there a local matching contribution? If so, what is the match, and how is that distributed, • i.e. Oak Park Heights, Stillwater, Washington County? If others are included, will they also An equal opportunity employer • be required to match? Will the City of Oak Park Heights be authorized to secure these partnerships? A:There is a 20%local match requirement for the HPP dollars that are expended on this study. The city, as the requesting agency, is responsible for the match. As the lead agency the city could request other study partners to contribute to the match requirement. 4) What are the anticipated roles, responsibilities, outcomes as defined by the Federal Highway Administration? What are the definitions of purpose and need, and what are the expected guidelines? A: The FHWA primary role is to authorize the use of the HPP funding. The city as the lead agency will need to prepare and submit materials to FHWA,through the State Aid office,for their review and approval. This will include a mini project memo that defines the scope of the work to be done under the study. A DBE(Disadvantaged Business Enterprise)goal also may be set for the study. 5) Oak Park Heights has been designated as the lead on this project. What role does Mn/DOT play? If the city takes the lead, what agency would it report to Mn/DOT, FHWA? Who does the RFP's for consultants? A: The city as the lead agency will be responsible for the RFP and the consultant contract. The City of Stillwater,Washington County,FHWA,and Mn/DOT should be partners in the study. The Mn/DOT State Aid office will assist the city with the various requirements to get FHWA authorization. The city will also be sending reimbursement requests to the State Aid office to access the HPP funds once the project is authorized and expenses are incurred. 6) According to T-LU, there are certain dollars appropriated each year. What is the process of accessing these funds? What "strings"are attached? Will the City be expected to front the funds necessary to begin a study and wait for reimbursement? Should a study begin when all funds are available or at what time is it best feasible to begin? Are allocations in place for each entities administration and engineering costs and if so, what percentage? What process is involved in accessing these funds for permitted purposes? A: The funds in the bill are set-up to provide 20%of the authorized amount each of the five years of the bill or about$80,000 per year for this study. However,the obligation authority in each year has been at about 85%of the annual amount. In 2005 the amount for this study was$68,438 and in 2006 it is$68,942. For the remaining three years it is assumed that it will be about$68,000 each year. The currently total available from the first two years is $137,380. The city can choose to front or AC(Advance Construction)the dollars for future payback in each of the years the funds are obligated. The other option is to delay the study, allow the dollars to accumulate,and then proceed with a contract. The city will need to get FHWA authorization prior to incurring any reimbursable expenses. The Mn/DOT Metro District State Aid Office will assign a Project Manager to this process to • assist the city with the authorization procedure. City administration and engineering expenses related to the study are eligible for reimbursement after authorization. The city will also submit billing requests to the State Aid office for reimbursement of eligible study costs. • It takes 2-3 weeks after submittal for the city to receive the reimbursement. 7) What are the parameters for further study of TH36 as defined by Mn/DOT? FHWA? Is the final outcome binding? If so, will Mn/DOT then enter this into its Transportation Plan (STIP)? Will the Met Council then recognize the final outcome? A: The study's outcome is not binding on any of the parties,but could presumably yield a recommendation that is acceptable to the city and the other partners. If all parties are agreeable to the outcome it will then need to be discussed as to how to proceed with steps such as further layout development, further environmental review,funding,and getting the project in the STIP. 8) Is City compliance with the NIMS(National Incident Monitoring System)a requirement for the use of these federal dollars? A: The National Incident Management System(NIMS)according to their website is a directive that establishes a national policy to defend the agriculture and food system against terrorist attacks,major disasters, and other emergencies. The directive is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch of the Federal Government. FHWA has not issued any requirements related to NIMS that would affect the use of HPP funds. If the city wants to proceed with this study at this time I will set up a meeting with the city and the State Aid office to discuss the process and what is needed to receive FHWA authorization. A • subsequent meeting with study partners should then be held by the city to begin to define the scope,roles,and funding for the study. Let me know how the city would like to proceed. Sincerely, Adam Josephson East Area Engineer Cc: Chris Cromwell,FHWA Nick Thompson,East Area Manager Dan Erickson, State Aid Office Todd Clarkowski,East Area Engineer • • • 4 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007.Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 March 31st, 2006 Adam Josephson, P.E. Minnesota DOT-Waters Edge Bldg. 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 RE: Allocation & Use of$400,000 in 2005 Transportation Bill. Dear Mr. Josephson, The City is in need of a status report regarding the allocation of the $400,000 as approved in the 2005 Transportation Bill. It is our understanding that such funds • were to be utilized by the City to identify and examine layout alternatives for the STH 36 corridor, including the "cut and cover" design. Generally we have the following questions and any official guidance you could provide us would be appreciated: 1. What is the general timeline to expend these dollars? Per SAFETEA-LU is 2009. Can any of the funds carry over beyond 2009? If not, how does MnDOT anticipate using these funds within the timelines? 2. How exactly may these funds be expended?At the time of the legislation the City's requested language was for"further study of TH36". However, the actual language in the bill states "Cut and Cover". May a different alternative be examined other than the Cut and Cover? Further, what are the parameters of the study, i.e. if Cut and Cover should prove to not be a viable solution, is there latitude to look at other options? 3. Is there a local matching contribution? If so, what is the match, and how is that to be distributed, i.e. Oak Park Heights, Stillwater, Washington County? If others are included, will they also be required to match? Will the City of Oak Park Heights be authorized to secure these partnerships? 4. What are the anticipated roles, responsibilities, outcomes as defined by • the Federal Highway Administration? What are the definitions of purpose and need, and what are the expected guidelines? 5. Oak Park Heights has been designated as the lead on this project. What role does MnDOT play? If the City takes the lead, what agency would it report to MnDOT, FHWA? Who does the RFPs for Consultants? 6. According to T-LU, there are certain dollars appropriated each year. What is the process for accessing these funds? What"strings" are attached? Will the City be expected to front the funds necessary to begin a study and wait for reimbursement? Should a study begin when all funds are available or at what time is it best feasible to begin? Are allocations in place for each entities administration and engineering costs and if so, what percentage? What process is involved in accessing these funds for permitted purposes? 7. What are the parameters for further study of TH36 as defined by MnDOT? FHWA? Is the final outcome binding? If so, will MnDOT then enter. this into its Transportation Plan (STIP)? Will the Met Council then recognize the final outcome? 8. Is City compliance with NIMS (National Incident Monitoring System) a requirement for the use of these federal dollars? Any feedback t .t you can provide on these items will be greatly appreciated. • Ple- :>et m= now if you have any questions. -re , is • son Ci A ministrator c: Todd Clarkowski, MnDOT Weekly Notes FEB-1?-2005 12:21 OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY P.02/06 TRANSPORTATION PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA, li OFFICE OF REP.MARK KENNEDY(MN-6) PLEASE MAKE CERTAIN YOU HAVE FILLED OUT THE ENTIRE QUESTIONNAIRE. (All responses will be strictly limited to no more than 140 words.) If you have any questions pertaining to this questionnaire,please contact Mark Matuska(763- ' 684-1600)or Tim Morrison(202-225.2331). Questionnaires must be submitted,in electronic MS Word.doc format,to Rep.Kennedy's office no later than Friday,January 28th. 1. Name and Congressional District of the primary Member of Congress sponsoring the project Rep.Mark Kennedy(M■-6) 2. Other Members supporting the project. Representative Kind and Senators Coleman and Feingold 3. If the project is a highway project, identify the State or other gnsllfied recipient responsible for carrying out the project. The Minnesota Dept. of Vans ortation nD01), in conjunction with the Wisconsin Dept.of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration 4. If the project is a transit project,please identify the project sponsor(must be an eligible recipient of Federal transit funds). The project is not a transit project. 5. Please categorize the project (Check one) Highway or bridge X Intermodal facility(passenger) Transit rail new start Interrnodal facility(freight) Bus,bus equipment,or bus facility Bicycle and Pedestrian Other(please identify) 6. Is the project eligible for the use of Federal-aid highway or transit funds under Title 23 or Title 49 of the United States Code? Yes, Title 23. • FEB-17-2006 12:21 OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY P.03/06 7. If the project is a highway or bridge project,is it on the National Highway System? • No. 8. Briefly describe the total project. a. Is it part of a larger system of projects? b. What is the total estimated cost of the project? The project is generally referred to as the St. Croix River Grossing/State Trunk Highway (STN) 36 Reconstruction,the "Project",and extends from State Trunk Hwy 5 in Stillwater,MN to 15e Street in New Richmond, WI Generally the Project includes building a new river crossing on the St Croix River and reconstructing the approaches in Minnesota and Wisconsin. For the purposes of this document the City is dealing only with the issues related to the STH 36 portion. • The STH 36 reconstruction element of the Project(from Hwy 5 to Osgood Ave)has been included in the Project for which the City of Oak Park Heights has examined three different designs for final incorporation into the Project: IP 1) Initial layouts were studied in the Highway 36 Partnership Study whose recommendation was to reconstruct STH 36 into the "Concept F.Buttonhook"Design, see Attachment_A . However, through the Environmental Impact Process the refined final design of Concept F was found to be unacceptable to the City of Oak Park Heights. 2) Another option that had been considered was the "Cut and Cover", but has not been fully studied or examined in enough detail to gauge its true viability,see Attachment B . 3) Lastly,the "1995 Layout",Attachment_C_ ,has been previously studied and did receive layout approval by the City,but is subject to a final Memorandum of Understanding. NEW SENTENCE NOT IN EMAIL OR PREVIOUS FAX: City's approval of the layout in 1995 was prior to court action that stopped_the nro�'ect,see_ Item 15. All three options carry the same financial implications for the City of Oak Park Heights in that the City,according to MnDOT,is to be responsible for the expenses incurred to relocate utilities(water,sewer,storm)from the right-of-way or as may be necessary to benefit the project These costs could be as high as$9.04 million dollars. See Attachment_D__, MnDOT's cost share policy. FEB-17-2006 12:22 OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY P.04/05 • As the STH36 has been designated a "High Priority Inter-regional Corridor",the need for the Project is high.Again,the citizens of Oak Park Heights are expected to bear the cost of utility relocations due to the reconstruction of a roadway that is overwhelmingly utilized by non-City residents. This burden would be financially devastating to a small community of 4,000. In total,the current and preliminary estimates for the total Project is$313 million, which includes approximately$22 million for the STH36 with 1995 layout.Should the Concept F be implemented the STH 36 estimate is$120 million;with the Cut and Cover estimated at$140 million.MnDOT has stated that it is their intention to proceed with final mapping for Concept F, but has not committed to funding City Utility relocation. 9. Please identify the specific segment for which project funding is being sought, including terminus points. State Trunk Highway 5 to the St. Croix River, including relocation of City Utilities. 10. What dollar amount are you requesting in the authorization for this project or segment of a project? $9.04 million for City of Oak Park Heights'utility relocations—(2004 dollars). See Attachment E from City Engineer that estimates utility relocation costs. $500,000 for final design of STII 36.See Attachment_F_from MnDOT that estimates additional design costs for STS 36. 11.Project Schedule a. What is the proposed schedule and status of work on the project? See estimated schedule from Stakeholders Group,Aitachment_G b. What is the current stage of development of the project?(If the project is a transit new start,please specify whether the project is in alternative analysis, preliminary engineering, final design,has been issued a record of decision,under environmental review,or already has a current full funding grant agreement) The project is in Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS) review stage. c. Will the requested funding for the project be obligated within the next five or six years? • Yes. FEB-17-2006 12:22 OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY P.05/06 12.Project Plan a. Is the project part of the State's long-range plan? Yes. See Attachment H__2020 MET Council Transportation Policy Plan b. Is the project included in the metropolitan and/or State Transportation Improvement Program(s)? Yes, the Project is included in the MET Council's and MnDOT's Capital Improvement Plan for 2020, unless included as part of the St Croix River Crossing project. 13.Is the project considered by the State and/or regional transportation officials as critical to their needs? Please provide a letter of support from these officials,and if you cannot, explain why not. There has been verbal support for this project from Senators and State Representatives, but due to the timing of this document were unable to secure them. These will follow when available. 14.Does the project have national or regional significance? Describe. This project is part of the High Priority Interregional Corridor—Trunk Highway System. The St. Croix River has been designated as a "Wild and Scenic"river. 15.Has the proposed project encountered, or is it likely to encounter,any significant opposition or other obstacles based on environmental or other types of concerns?If yes, please describe. Legal action halted this project in 1995 due to the impact of a bridge on the "Wild and Scenic"St. Croix River. The current process includes creating a "Stakeholders Group" comprised of different parties whose charge is to workout any significant issues.It is unknown at this time if there are to be any further legal challenges. 16.Describe the economic,environmental,congestion mitigation, and safety benefits associated with completion of the project. Please see attached recommendations from the Partnership Committee, City Engineer and City Auditor. (Attachments I ,_E & J ,respectively)Further information will be in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 17. Has the project already received funding through the State's federal-aid highway or transit formula apportionments or from other Federal, State,local, or private funds?If yes,how much and from what source? No. FEB-17-2006 12:22 OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY P.06/06 18.Has the project received funding in a previous authorization act? No. 19.lithe project has received funding in a previous authorization act,please cite the act(s) and amount(s)authorized. No. 20.Has the project received funding in a previous appropriations act? No. 21.If the project has received funding in a previous appropriations act,please cite the act(s) and amount(s)appropriated. No. 22.If the project is funded,please provide a description of the project as you would like it to appear in the bill. Any legislation that would authorize/fund the Project should explicitly include that at least 9.04 million dollars shall be provided to the City of Oak Park Heijihts for the relocation of City utilities necessary to accommodate the reconstruction of H ehway 36 as part of the St. Croix River Crossing/STS 36 Relocation.Additionally, language should be inserted that provides the City with $500,000 in to develop a final and acceptable STH 36 design. And, without such assistance the City of Oak Park Heights would not be in a position to bear such a costly burden and would be unable to approve,final layout TOTAL P.06 • U.S.Department • C/ Mi 380 Jackson Street of Transportation I l�, J Galtier Plaza,Suite 500 Federal Highway St.Paul,MN 55101-2904 11. . Administration (651)291-6100 Minnesota Division �� on (651)291-6000 Fax March 14,2006 The Honorable James L. Oberstar Ranking.Member Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure U.S. House of Representatives 2365 Rayburn House Office Building Washington,DC 20515 Re: SAFETEA-LU High Priority Projects Program(Section 1702) • Item 1810 Design/Engineering,TH 95 Bridge North Branch,Minnesota Dear Congressman Oberstar: Thank you for your February 22,2006,letter regarding the reconstruction of the TH 95 Bridge in North Branch,Minnesota which was included under Section 1702 of the Safe,Accountable, Flexible,Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy of Users(SAFETEA-LU). The statutory language described the project as:"Design Engineering,and ROW Acquisition to Reconstruct TH 95 Bridge,North Branch." A fundamental principal of Federal appropriations law is that Federal funds must be obligated consistent with the statutory language authorizing their use(Title 31,United States Code,Section 1301(a)). With this principle in mind,we must limit the funds to design engineering and right-of-way(ROW)acquisition for the reconstruction of the TH 95 Bridge. Without a change in the statutory description,the funds may not be used for other activities,such as construction,construction engineering,approaches,ramps,signals, turn lanes and multi-use trails. We hope this clarifies our position. Our Division Office is working with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to ensure that funds are made available to project sponsors consistent with all Federal requirements. If you have any questions,feel free to contact me at (651)291-6102 or Minnesota Division Special Programs Coordinator Romeo Garcia at(651) 291-6125. Sincerely urs, - / -12 / Thomas Sorel Division44ministrator 0 ttmoo• IS56 KLE zoos e U www.fhwa.dot 9 ovhnndiv 411 v. T., 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 March 31St, 2006 Adam Josephson, P.E. Minnesota DOT -Waters Edge Bldg. 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 RE: Allocation & Use of$400,000 in 2005 Transportation Bill. Dear Mr. Josephson, The City is in need of a status report regarding the allocation of the $400,000 as • approved in the 2005 Transportation Bill. It is our understanding that such funds were to be utilized by the City to identify and examine layout alternatives for the STH 36 corridor, including the "cut and cover" design. Generally we have the following questions and any official guidance you could provide us would be appreciated: 1. What is the general timeline to expend these dollars? Per SAFETEA-LU is 2009. Can any of the funds carry over beyond 2009? If not, how does MnDOT anticipate using these funds within the timelines? 2. How exactly may these funds be expended?At the time of the legislation the City's requested language was for"further study of TH36". However, the actual language in the bill states "Cut and Cover". May a different alternative be examined other than the Cut and Cover? Further, what are the parameters of the study, i.e. if Cut and Cover should prove to not be a viable solution, is there latitude to look at other options? 3. Is there a local matching contribution? If so, what is the match, and how is that to be distributed, i.e. Oak Park Heights, Stillwater, Washington County? If others are included, will they also be required to match? Will the City of Oak Park Heights be authorized to secure these partnerships? • 4. What are the anticipated roles, responsibilities, outcomes as defined by the Federal Highway Administration? What are the definitions of purpose and need, and what are the expected guidelines? 0 5. Oak Park Heights has been designated as the lead on this project. What role does MnDOT play? If the City takes the lead, what agency would it report to MnDOT, FHWA? Who does the RFPs for Consultants? 6. According to T-LU, there are certain dollars appropriated each year. What is the process for accessing these funds? What "strings" are attached? Will the City be expected to front the funds necessary to begin a study and wait for reimbursement? Should a study begin when all funds are available or at what time is it best feasible to begin? Are allocations in place for each entities administration and engineering costs and if so, what percentage? What process is involved in accessing these funds for permitted purposes? 7. What are the parameters for further study of TH36 as defined by MnDOT? FHWA? Is the final outcome binding? If so, will MnDOT then enter this into its Transportation Plan (STIP)? Will the Met Council then recognize the final outcome? 8. Is City compliance with NIMS (National Incident Monitoring System) a requirement for the use of these federal dollars? • Any feedb. o that you can provide on these items will be greatly appreciated. Pie- e -t e know if you have any questions. S �t r /Johnson • Administrator Cc: Todd Clarkowski, MnDOT Weekly Notes I 06 d 4! .a. i _ lo • 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 February 22,2006 Adam Josephson,P.E. Minnesota DOT- Waters Edge Bldg. 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE: Staff Approved Layout—Level 1 Geometric—Dated Jan 9t,2006 As attached. Dear Mr.Josephson, On February 15t,2006 you had delivered to the City a set of plans defined as a"Staff Approved Layout"for the St.Croix River Crossing Project and contained the cover • memo as attached hereto. You further indicated that it was not the intent of MnDOT to initiate any municipal consent process with the delivery of this document nor was there any particular action necessary on the part of the City to respond or comment on the document. Accordingly,the City thanks you for the information and acknowledges the receipt of such materials,but per your comments,shall not undertake any particular review at this time.As you know we have been working toward the following approvals,but to date the City has not approved a project layout or alternative,provided its municipal consent nor has there been a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the City and MnDOT. We also notice that the"Scheduled Letting Date"is for 2024.Considering this timeline,it remains imperative that MnDOT address the critical needs of the frontage roads and their continued deterioration,as the current conditions are deplorable. Please advise us as to MnDOT's plan to address,maintain or improve these frontage roads in the immediate future. It is our understanding that the$4 million dollars recently allocated under the 2005 Federal Transportation Bill could also be utilized for frontage road improvements; what is that status and scope of MnDOT's plan to utilize these funds? Lastly,the letter indicates four key purposes for the Project;three of the four directly relate to Downtown Stillwater and/or the lift bridge and the last item discusses the • 1 • Project's importance as an"interregional corridor". It is therefore valid that the City questions MnDOT policy on requiring that the City fund various elements,(utilities)as the purposes for the Project,as stated by MnDOT,are not in Oak Park Heights nor are these benefits directly serving Oak Park Heights residents more so than any other regional end-user.Accordingly,the City anticipates and hopes that MnDOT will reflect on these stated positions and correctly agree to appropriate terms as would be contained in an MOU. Please let me know' ,ou any questions. ncer-� ricJo City - nistrator Cc: City Council Members Mark Vierling,City Attorney Todd Clarkowski,MNDOT—via email Manna Getty,MNDOT—via email • Ken Holte,SRF Consulting—via email Monty Hamri,MNDOT • 2 .MtioN rt Minnesota Department of Transportation Memo Metropolitan District-Design Office Tel: 651-582-1606 Mail Stop 050,Waters Edge Building Fax: 651-582-1308 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville,MN 55113 January 9,2006 To: Addressees From: Alana Getty,Preliminary Design Project Manager Monty Hamri,Final Design Project Manager Todd Clarkowski,East Area Engineer Ken Holte,SRI~Consulting Subject: Mn/DOT Staff Approved Distribution of Level 1 Geometric Layout for S.P.8214-114 and S.P.8217-12 T.H.36,St.Croix River Crossing Project-Preferred Alternative Layout No.2A Part A and Layout No.3 Parts B and C Cities of Stillwater and Oak Park Heights,Washington County,Minnesota and the Town of St.Joseph,St Croix County,Wisconsin 4111/ Scheduled Letting Date: 2024(currently unfunded) Attached is a file copy of Mn/DOT Staff approved Level 1 Geometric Layout for the St. Croix River Crossing Preferred Alternative. Part A=TH 36 west of Osgood Ave in Minnesota Part B=TH 36/95 east of Osgood Ave in Minnesota Part C=STH 35/64 in Wisconsin) The project area extends along TH 36 from the TB 36/TH 5 interchange in Stillwater and Oak Park Heights,Minnesota to'150th Avenue on SIB 36/64 in the Town of St.Joseph, Wisconsin. The preferred alternative package includes: (1)river crossing location alternative i3-1,(2)extrrrdosed new bridge type,(3)future use of the Lift Bridge as a pedlbike facility,and(4)appropriate mitigation items. With continued input from multiple stakeholders,representing various social,economic, cultural and natural environment interests,this project proposes to provide the following: • improved traffic operations to relieve existing and future congestion in downtown Stillwater and on approach roadways to the Lift Bridge by increasing roadway capacity; • Address concerns related to interrupted service provided by the Lift Bridge due to daily operations,seasonal flooding,and repairs as well as maintenance,operations,and repair costs; • 15 • Improved safety of the approach roadways and pedestrian safety in downtown Stillwater;and • Improved operations on a corridor that has been identified as an interregional corridor connecting Minnesota and Wisconsin. A new four-lane bridge will cross the river at a point in Minnesota 7,480 feet south of the Lift Bridge.The B-1 alignment uses a south ravine alignment meeting the Wisconsin bluff 5,465 feet south of the Lift Bridge(the B-1 alignment is 1,000 feet south of the 1995 project, B alignment). Additional information is available on the project website: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix/index.htm I This layout is being used to complete the Supplemental Final Environmental impact Statement(S F E I S).The anticipated release date of the(S F E I S)is March 2006. • 2 ADDRESSEE LIST Addressees: (Including 100 scale Layout) -Municipalities(One layout per municipality within project limits) - 1. Stillwater 2. Oak Park Heights 3. Bayport 4. Washington County 5. Town of St.Joseph 6. St Croix County • 3 • f ' ` T 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 February 28,2006 Mr.Adam Josephson,P.E. Minnesota DOT- Waters Edge Bldg. 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE: DRAFT Visual Quality Manual Dear Mr.Josephson, Thank you for providing the City an opportunity to review the DRAFT Visual Quality Manual (VQM).Below you will find our preliminary commentary.The City does reserve its rights for further review and commentary on these and other documents. 1) Generally,the City does not find the current aesthetic design of the proposed Beach Road • Bridge to be acceptable.Please revise the design to a more natural and organic appearance.However,please note that the City has not approved a final layout for a new Beach Road crossing. 2) The City was unable to locate any language in the document that discusses maintenance responsibility for any of the proposed improvements such as planters,gardens,sidewalks, trails,etc.To date the City has not agreed to maintain these,or any other facilities. 3) It is the City's understanding that there shall be a"pumphouse"located in this project to provide the new bridge deck with a de-icing system.The City has not been provided any information regarding this item and will require full planning and engineering review at MnDOT expense.How will utilities be provided to this facility? 4) On page 2-1,second paragraph,right-hand column,please remove the last sentence in that paragraph that begins,"The name Oak Park Heights implies..." 5) Page 3-1 discusses the proposed STH 36/95 area in terms of its relationship to Stillwater and Bayport,but fails to mention that this interchange is in fact in the City of Oak Park Heights.Please revise this page to properly frame the location of the new facilities to be in the City of Oak Park Heights. 6) Page 3-6 discusses that STH 95 will serve as a"gateway"to the cities of Bayport and Stillwater.Please also add that STH 95 also is a gateway to the City of Oak Park Heights. SEE PAGE 2 • 1 S Overall the VQM that the City has received as a draft document is incomplete with several sections,maps or drawings missing.Accordingly it is premature for the City to comment on the viability of the entire document until opportunity has been provided to review the material in its entirety. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, 611 /N- alt, n as Eric Johnson City Administrator • Cc: City Council Members Mark Vierling,City Attorney Todd Clarkowski,MnDOT—via email • 2 tt • • 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 February 17,2006 Adam Josephson,P.E. Minnesota DOT- Waters Edge Bldg. 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 ***also via email*** RE: Commentary on MOA 1 MOU: Current Comments on the MOA—Section 106 Current Comments on the MOU—Implementation of Riverway Mitigation Items Current Comments on the MOU—Growth Management Mitigation Items Current Comments on the MOU—Water Quality Management Advisory Committee Current Comments on the MOU—Between Xcel Energy(Northern States Power and MnDOT Dear Mr.Josephson, S Thank you for providing the City an opportunity to review the above draft documents.Enclosed you will find our preliminary commentary.The City does reserve its rights for further review and commentary on these and other documents. Please let me know• o ve questions. egards, �GJ�ii� m City Adm" Armor 1 Cc: City Council Members Mark Vierling,City Attorney Dennis Postler,City Engineer Todd Clarkowski,via email Terry Pederson,via email Cheryl Martin,FHA via email S Preliminary Comments on the MOU—Implementation of R}verwsv Mitigation Items Item 1: Item I indicates that the new St.Croix River crossing lies between Oak Park Heights and Stillwater and St. Joseph Township.Why does this include Stillwater?See letter to Adam Josephson dated 2/16/06 as attached. Item 6; The paragraph states that there is a"graphic"describing Mitigation for Riverway Impacts,this was not attached. Item 8 f—Riverway Interpretation: This paragraph discusses the placement of information or interpretive facilities/kiosks.The City of Oak Park Heights has been only generically approached on the placement of these facilities.The City is concerned with potential conflicts with city systems,land use plans,traffic management and other conflicts within the City's zoning ordinance.Detailed plans and locations must be provided to the City prior to any final authorizations. Item 8 g—Publlc Boat Access: The document discusses a public boat access.The City of Oak Park Heights has provided commentary to MNDOT and MNDNR as to the terms and conditions under which a boat launch facility may be located within the City.That document is again attached hereto.To date,neither MNDOT nor MNDNR has approached the City in advancing this discussion—See letter dated August 186,2004 to Rick Arnebeck MNDOT. S Item 8 h—Loop Trail System: (i) The City of Oak Park Heights has not approved a final project layout nor approved a final trail location(s).MNDOT has not approached the City of Oak Park Heights to discuss trail layouts. (iv) The City of Oak Park Heights has not approved the Visual Quality Manual. (viii) The City of Oak Park Heights has not yet agreed to accept or maintain any trail infrastructure. Maintenance features to be appear absent from the MOU's Item 8 1—Recreation,Education and Riverway Restoration: Item c in this subheading discusses the placement of a restroom facility along the river.The City of Oak Park Heights has not been approached nor has approved this facility to be located in Oak Park Heights. Item 8 j—Covenants on Excess Property: This item discusses that there will not be excess property on the Minnesota side of the project.To date the City of Oak Park Heights has not approved a final project layout nor granted municipal consent Accordingly,the determination that there will be no excess property is premature.The comments made within the document conflict with previous discussions between MNDOT and the City of Oak Park Heights. Item 8: This paragraph discuses the creation of an OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE,why grnPh E, by does this not include the local units of government representing the people most impacted by the Project. • Preliminary Comments on the MOU—Growth Management Mitiaation Items Item 1: Item 1 indicates that the new St.Croix River crossing lies between Oak Park Heights and Stillwater and St.Joseph Township.Why does this include Stillwater?See letter to Adam Josephson dated 2/16/06 as attached. Missing Item- Funding should also be provided to the City Oak Park Heights to examine impacts of the new Bridge and Corridor on current populations,especially for impacts on lower Oak Park Heights—"Village Area". • Preliminary Comments on the MOU—Water Quality Management Advisory Committee The first paragraph indicates that the new crossing lies between Stillwater and the Town of St.Joseph.Please correctly state that the crossing lies between the City of Oak Park Town St.Joseph. See letter to Adam Josephson dated 2/16/06 as Heights and the own S � P �P attached. Wetland Permitting-The attached table 16-2"Agency Permits,Approvals and other Required Documents"should also indicate that the City also maintains a Wetland Ordinance for which any project must meet the terms and conditions. • I II Preliminary Comments on the MOU—Between Xcel gnerav(Northern States Power and MnDOT Item 6-Permits NSP(Xcel Energy)operates its facility under the terms and conditions of a Conditional Use Permit as issued by the City.Any variation or alterations of land use not consistent with that CUP or within the Riverway District must first be approved by the City.Any items contemplated within the MOU must be first reviewed in detail by the City to determine if permits are required including but not limited to:demolition,construction, wetland elimination or filling activities.To date the City has not been provided documentation or a proposal outlining the contemplated work. Item 10—Boat Ramp The City has not authorized the placement of a Boat Ramp or other river access facility. Any such placement will first require written approval by the City incorporating the necessary terms and conditions.—See letter dated August 18th,2004 to Rick Arnebeck MNDOT 1 i I I AI I IIPreliminary Comments on the MOA—Section 106 To date the City has elected to not be a signatory on the 106 MOA,please ensure that the City's name is removed in the signature block,versus stating that we have"declined to sign"or leaving it blank. S 1 11 s 6 City of Oak Park Heights • • MN 55082. 651 439-4439•Fax 439-0574 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights, ( ) August 18,2004 Mr.Rick Arnebeck MNDOT 15000 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE:Boat Ramp Dear Rids, As you know the City has clearly stated that it is not significantly interested in having such Boat Ramp Facility located within our borders.However,the DNR remains constant in their opinion that this Facility be included in the HWY 36/Brideg Project So in some effort to keep the process in a positive tone City Staff suggests that the following items are the minimum general conditions that the City would seek for the installation of the Boat Ramp within Oak Park Heights.All final approvals would need to be granted by the City Council after being placed through an appropriate process and placed into an appropriate agreement • The property is zoned Industrial(I)and would need to be rezoned to an alternative use that allows such facilities;or the Industrial code would need to be revised to allow such use via a Conditional Use Permit(CUP).CUP would need to be issued by the City Council. • • All City Wetland and tree protection ordinances must also be reviewed and complied with.All such permits and required staff analysis shall be paid for by DNR as per City Development Process. • The City shall approve layout and design. • DNR would bear any and all costs for construction. • All structures shall require a CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS Building Permit • The City would set all hours of operation.A gate shall be placed at the entrance/exit and may be operated by the City. • DNR is responsible for all regular maintenance and shall be kept in a 1"class condition. • DNR would amtually pay$40,000(this amount is a rough estimate)into repair/replacement fund paid to the City-in perpetuity-during the life of the facility.This would ensure that the facility is maintained,replaced and/or removed. • DNR would annually pay$40,000(this amount is a rough estimate)police patrol/carrying cost stipend paid to the City-in perpetuity during the life of the fealty. • After ten years,should the City Council determine that the facility has become a public nuisance and is ' detrimental to the health,safety and welfare of the City of Oak Park Heights,the facility shall be closed.Upon the closing of the facility all structures,concrete,piers,docks,roadways,etc shall be removed by the DNR at the direction of the City and the property shall be restored to a condition as required by the City. I 1 • DNR shall fund l/2 of the cost of the Autumn Hills Park Shelter(in 2004 dollars=50%of$450,000). Again,these concepts are Staff level comments and are only for points of discussion to potentially move this process forward.The City Council has not given or implied any further interest in this Boat Ramp/ Facility beyond the written documentation recently +,vided to MnDOT. est Re:, , r� Brio Jo Cc: City Council Members Todd Clarkowski,MN OT Beth Bartz,SRF S i 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 February 16th,2006 Adam Josephson,P.E. Minnesota DOT-Waters Edge Bldg. 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 ***Also via email*** Dear Mr.Josephson, The City is in receipt of three MOU documents that discuss project mitigations which you have asked for the City's input and comment. One concern the City maintains is that these documents indicate that the bridge crossing is to be located in Stillwater or references"Oak Park Heights and Stillwater". Please advise if the proposed alignment has moved further north,placing the bridge crossing in Stillwater,rather than in Oak Park Heights. If the proposed alignment has not been altered,please revise the documents to indicate that the bridge crossing lies between Oak Park Heights,Minnesota,and the Town St.Joseph,Wisconsin. We are still reviewing the MOUs and compiling additional comments that we hope to send out by the end of the week. Thank you, Eric Johnson City Administrator • Cc: Weekly Notes Todd Clarkowski--via email Terry Pederson,WisDOT—via email I 0°N4 1 Minnesota Department of Transportation 10` Metropolitan District pF„we Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville MN 55113-3174 August 8,2006 Eric Johnson Oak Park Height City Administrator 14168 Oak Park Blvd.North Oak Park Heights,MN 55083 Re:Municipal Consent Process for St.Croix River Crossing Project ' Dear Eric: This letter is to inform the City that Mn/DOT will be submitting the St.Croix River Crossing project layout to the City under the current Minnesota State Statute for municipal consent(Mn Statute161.164). In an October 2004 letter to the City and in recent MOU discussions,we stated that per the city request,Mn/DOT intended to follow the old municipal consent statute that existed prior to 2001. However,after recent review and discussion with legal council and Mn/DOT management,it was determined that proceeding under the old statute was not defensible.Submitting the layout to Oak P g � y Park Heights,Stillwater and Bayport under the current statute is the only legal option available for • this project.The current statute is a more defined process than old statute;it lays out what information must be provided to each city,and dearly defines the timing of various steps. Essentially nothing changes in our submittal of materials.As planned,Mn/DOT will officially submit the SFEIS,project layout and an estimate of local costs to the City for municipal consent. The City will need to schedule a hearing and take a formal action on the consent request within proscribed timeframes of the statute.The request for consent will be made this fall after FHWA has issued their Record of Decision.The FHWA action is expected in early September.In the interim, the City and Mn/DOT need to continue the MOU discussions and resolve remaining issues. I regret that Mn/DOT needed to change course on this issue,but after reviewing the statutes and discussing the issue with legal council and staff we came to the inevitable conclusion that the new statute was the only reasonable option for this step in the project. I look forward to the continued discussions and conclusion on the MOU,the council workshop in September and finalizing preparations for submittal of the project to the City for municipal consent. Sincerely ick Thompson East Area Manager IP° An equal opportunity employer OCT-08-2004 08 27 ADE STAFF AREA FAX 6515821302 P.02 Minnesota Department of Transportation 0-1-2.91# 1732 Metropolitan Division °r"'s. Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 65113 October 5,2004 Mr.Eric Johnson City Administrator PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Dear Mr.Johnson: RE:St. Croix River Crossing,Municipal Consent Process In a previous letter,dated July 8,2004. I indicated that Mn/DOT would be using the current municipal consent process for this project. In your letter dated August 25,2004,you indicated that the city is of the position that this project is exempt from the new processes and should proceed under the old process. This letter is to inform you that Mn/DOT has reconsidered it's position for this project and subsequent to the completion of the environmental process,it is our intention to resume the • municipal consent process as described in the statutes,prior to the statutory revisions of 2001. The limits of the project continue to extend from 150`'Street in Wisconsin to T.H.5 in Oak Park Heights/Stillwater. Under the previous action relating to this project,a Memorandum of Understanding was developed and signed by Mn/DOT and Oak Park Heights. I will be calling you to sec up a meeting to review the previous Memorandum of Understanding to determine what updates or revisions to the MOU would be appropriate. Thank you for your patience on this matter in working to get it resolved. If you have any questions,please don't hesitate to call me after I return from vacation on October 17. Sincer ly, Arnebeck East Metro Area Manager Cc: Larry Hanson,Stillwater Jim Schug,Washington County Don Theisen,Washington County • An equal opportunity employer TOTAL P.02 LAW OFFICES OF • Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling, P.L.L.P. 1835 Northwestern Avenue James F.Lammers Stillwater,Minnesota 55082 Lyle J.Eckberg Robert G.Briggs * (1916-2003) Mark J.Vierling•4 (651) 439-2878 Thomas J.Weidner• FAX(651) 439-2923 Paul A.Wolff Susan D.Olson ( ) (19441996) David K.Snyder Sean P.Stokes Direct Dial No: (651)351-2118 Baiers C Heeren •Qualified Neutral Arbitrator Laura L.Domagala *Certified Real Estate Specialist Joshua D.Christensen +Qualified Neutral Mediator October 18,2004 Mayor David Beaudet Councilmember Les Abrahamson 6400 Lookout Trail North 13990—56th Street North Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082 Oak Park Heights,Minnesota 55082 Councilmember Mark Swenson Councilmember Jack Doerr 14846 Upper 55th Street North 14520 Upper 56th Street • Oak Park Heights,Minnesota 55082 Oak Park Heights,Minnesota 55082 Councilmember Mary McComber 5728 Penfield Avenue North Oak Park Heights,Minnesota 55082 Re: Municipal Consent Statute Dear Mayor and Council: At the last City Council meeting,the Council requested our offices to provide you with a synopsis of the current municipal consent legislation which exists and which previously existed and now which is an issue between the State of Minnesota and the City of Oak Park Heights relative to its application to the Trunk Highway 36 project. The City did receive correspondence from Rich Arnabeck,the East Metro Area Manager,relative to this issue dated October 5. That correspondence provided as follows: "This letter is to inform you that MnDOT has reconsidered its position for this project and subsequent to the completion of the environmental process,it is our intention to resume the municipal consent process described in the statutes,prior to the statutory revisions of 2001." • • Mayor and Councilmembers October 18, 2004 Page 2 Although Mr. Arnabeck indicates the"intention of the department"which means that the department is not issuing any commitment at this date to the City of Oak Park Heights that P g Y tY �► is firm and unequivocal and,therefore,I regard the letter as a statement of intent as opposed to a q g PP binding obligation on behalf of the State of Minnesota. As you are aware,the 2001 legislature modified the municipal consent process. I am providing you with copies of the current legislation which is outlined in Minn. Stat. §161.164 and §161.166. The former process was provided for in Minn. Stat. §161.171, 161.172 through 176. The most significant difference between the former municipal consent process and that of the current is that under the appeal process laid out in the statute,in a trunk highway project not a part of an interstate highway process the Commissioner of Transportation retains jurisdiction over the determination of whether or not to build in many aspects and that the position of the appellate board under the nay legislation a recommendation to the Commissioner of Transportation as opposed to an absolute binding determination., 1so,the appellate board under the current legislation was not • given independent investigatory powers as it had under the former legislature. There are a number of evidentiary and formal changes to the administrative/appeal process that were implemented within the new legislation to remov .it_from..a morj.jo uatpxnceeding and take it into a less formal or more informal proceeding as well. The provisions for the Commissioner under th-"new egislation, even in a worst case scenario,i.e. municipal refusal to consent and the appellate bo. • i enial of the layout,would still allow the Commissioner to resubmit a new final layout and go through the process over and over again. It would seem to me under the former legislation once denied by the municipality and/or the appeal board,the project then as laid out and submitted would be terminated. There are, of course, differences also in the appointment of personnel to the appeal board which you can review in the copies of the legislation that are submitted. Although these differences may be viewed by some to be slight in terms of process and in terms of power of the appellate board,certainly the former legislation gave the appealbourd the fag farmater_tgle,both as a formal hearing body and investigative body and a final determiner of the lay out. It is,therefore,perceived to be a far greater asset and tool to municipalities that are confronted with trunk highway lay outs. The City's position,of course,has always been with the department that we view the current Trunk Highway 36 project as part of a continuing process which was initiated back in the S • Mayor and Councilmembers October 18,2004 Page 3 mid-1990's when the City originally approved a layout which had been rejected by federal court. The department's work on trunk highway lay out since that date has been constant and, as Mayor Beaudet has pointed out,the assignment numbers of the project on both the federal DOT and the Wisconsin DOT levels remain the same as they were for the 1995 *re:- Yours v Mark J.Vierling MJV/sdb • cc: Eric Johnson,City Administrator • • y3a. :TAT- al), HIGHWAY SYSTEM § 161.172 , � s ,k htg 1 i,; ; motes the proposed locations, elevation, width of lanes, and the type and No. 6 ;'„ lion of proposed roadway intersections or interchanges together with the i '. nets o rbroximate location, width, and length of bridges and the approximate right- .:,. f H,gh1 " .;,-.•ay limits and access locations,where applicable. cued poruoA _ - d. 7. Construction plan. "Construction plan" means the plan sheets, and ir; ,`, les, typical cross-sections and supplemental drawings which show the to exe�y'f. . :` 1' ,:lion, character, dimensions and details of the highway construction or city a'er- .:, mission ak "provement work to be done, and which are substantially in conformance ,vith pro 4tk th the plan which will be submitted to prospective bidders. feet no l= h4:. "= 1969, C. 312, § 1, eff. May 8, 1969. Amended by Laws 1973, c. 123, art. 5, § 7; is of f K���_ � ,bie if ar, "`'' 1976,c. 166, § 7; Laws 1980,c. 509,§ 51. of such'11, - ,. )36, No:` i � Statutory Notes a Historical and Stat o Y ' 1973 amendatory act was a general au- The 1980 amendatory act was a Revisor's bill, =x ..' ; 'ty permitting the consolidation of the terms which, in subd. 5, substituted "473" for dtosub �. '. � `1 ges" and "boroughs" into the term "cit- '"473B". s :, or the substitution of the term "statutory f. vocation ok ,-.,'1..„... for"villages"and/or"boroughs." s 229-D- . °- 1976 amendaton' act substituted refer- '''' ' ' to the commissioner of transportation for i 't nk high 07 1irferences to the commissioner of highways. s ier of Hi y, to sub. �y qu ), t Cross References ignwa ropolitan council,review of proposed construction,see§ 473.181.-.fi,t p1)facility,approval of development agreement,see§ 160.85.'petty for, ,. E , Library References 11: 'Statutes«179. construct • f ;.-agency cr °f WESTLAW Topic No 361. '.354 prio r „,,„:21.,n ,e;c~1•S.Statutes§§ 306,309. t )pt.Atty.t:r I, i ' 61.172. Municipalities to consent . -, g (a) Except for routes on the interstate system, no state trunk highway or any ' thereof, located within the corporate limits of any municipality, shall be the to lit.; � '` tructed or improved in the manner specified in this section without the . ,G ' I .,,, ent of the governing body of such municipality, unless the procedures ssioner ribed by sections 161.172 to 161.177 shall have been followed by the 1 1. issioner of transportation. The highway improvements requiring consent 1 E a mum.'. Xl mated to those improvements which alter access, increase or reduce ' .N way traffic capacity or require acquisition of permanent rights-of-way. . state. x 1s section shall not limit the power of the commissioner to regulate traffic or ” �-���`•h measures on trunk highways meas t s safety t ,t t' raffic control devices or other a y ties v counties! 7���s •,ted within municipalities. 1, prese �'` p n ,`� ').Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as in any way , , , nation P, 473, w s, ' . ' tang the commissioner's discretion to determine the priority and program- { �� �.�. of trunk highway construction. a ', clan for t' 1969, c. 312, 2, eff. May 8, 1969. Amended by Laws 1976, c. 166, § 7; Laws ,) § Y y �. whic i'` ,, ,',c.533,§ 6,eff.April 12, 1980. ,,j 197 1 4 4 k r 3' �. t ,, c :JNK HIGHWAY SYSTEM § 161.174 ison. The hearing shall be conducted by the commissioner or the commis- I r, imp _i `,per's designee, and shall be transcribed and a record thereof mailed to each i `- f F iunicipality or agency entitled to receive a copy of the report. All interested i ' •""sons shall be permitted to present their views on the proposed highway i 1 a ; onstruction or improvement. The hearing may be continued as often as i f , to ;necessary. Within 120 days after the hearing is completed, the governing body i `,f each municipality or agency entitled to receive a copy of the report shall 4 bmit to the commissioner its approval or disapproval of the report. If all or f . u y part of the report is disapproved, the municipality or agency shall state the .f j '; ' ,i'`.asons for such disapproval and suggested changes in the report. The corn- ,` ICY C - .`missioner shall, before preparing additional plans for the proposed highway ::),,t, , J',nstruction or improvement, submit to the governing body of each municipali-atty .- ,�C ��� or agency disapproving the report, a statement accepting or rejecting any',„suggested changes and the reasons for acceptance or rejection. std ' E,,1- gr°' Laws 1969, c. 312, § 3, eff. May 8, 1969. Amended by Laws 1980, c. 509, § 52; Laws �1 '1984,c.654, art. 3,§ 52,eff. May 3, 1984; Laws 1986,c.444; Laws 1994, c. 628,art. 3, ;'� 4,1 10,eff.Oct. 1, 1994. ictp s f Y1 d to , _: ;` Historical and Statutory Notes a rep - '• The 1980 amendatory act, in the third sen- The 1994 amendment removed "and the re- npr0 -" .'ence,deleted reference to chapter 473B follow- gional transit board established by chapter 473" - .omii' 'log "metropolitan council", and substituted following "a copy of the report shall also be N 4"473"for"473A". submitted to the metropolitan council". h ;S` ', The 1984 amendatory act substituted "region Laws 1994, c. 628, art. 3, § 210, provides in *,3 r ; Sa1 transit board"for"metropolitan transit com- '; >oints mission"in the third sentence. part that§ 10(amending this section)applies in p. laws 1986, c. 444, authorized the removal of the counties of Apoka, Carver, Dakota, Henne- 4 � ; to e,..:4,,..42-, :r ponsubstantive gender specific references. pin,Ramsey,Scott,and Washington. > t, )ort " ,.2. , /',-,P-i, ' preset, Library References to ` ;iti 'Highways 0=.23, 103. O oli,t, „WESTLAW Topic No.200. n'x p C.J.S.Highways§§ 39, 180 to 184, 186. CoupMll .. ��`�,�.i x ^. regio■ ^;" Notes of Decisions the Iii'''.��. ����'.. � muhl•ik � ' .general 1 council and the metropolitan transit commis- l's' ' T l; sion where the highway project is within the ' . , I h01t ., �:;- metropolitan area. Op.Atty.Gen., 229-D-15, t ati fS.a i .. In general May 6, 1970. y. 1, •: The words "adjacent municipality" as used :ii .,ropot The term agency as used in this section and within this section means municipalities abut- 1:.- 1.174 and 161.177, refers to established re- ,-,-1a..." to , ling on municipalities wherein a trunk highway 31.- 2t ;Tonal,county and municipal planning commis- is proposed to be constructed or improved, in- ill I,. r in the area affected by the highway pro- eluding alternate routes. Op.Atty.Gen., o rec 4'.� ti and in addition thereto the metropolitan 229-D-15,May 6, 1970. t >lishe P,, wsparrt 61.174. Submission of layout plans ion '. -/The commissioner shall submit to the governing body of each municipality :. state ='.. herein a highway is proposed to be constructed or improved, a proposed r, S, )pose' Yout plan for the highway construction or improvement containing: the ,, and sl. } " 'posed location, elevation, width and geometries of the construction or intere' ,,, provement, together with a statement of the reasons therefor. Said plan '_ail 199 k_ > t , #' § 161.172 TRANSPORTATION T '� _',UNK I- Historical and Statutory Notes -rson. T The 1976 amendatory act substituted refer- The 1980 amendatory act specified improve Ipner�s do ences to the commissioner of transportation for ments requiring consent. x,;. references to the commissioner of highways. , ttnicipali , st '� `t s ',`rsons sl Library References .9iistruCti( Highways'23. r . iffecessary. WESTLAW Topic No.200. '� °' '.'" each m C.J.S.Highways§ 39. ' t,‘,, .0mit to , iy part o Notes of Decisions ons fo yV;. In general 1 should be referred to the planning agency creat- ed 1„ SlOrier by the municipality under§ 462.354 prior to _- ,riStructic the acquisition of the property. Op.Atty.Gen ts4 , ' �;, ,. 1. In general 63—b-24,Dec.9, 1971. or agen Proposed acquisition of real property for in- A " ' i ''ggested terstate or state trunk highway construction 1 ws 1969, `- 161.173. Submission of corridor proposal ';'9'64,C.654 10,eft'.Or The commissioner shall submit to the governing body of each municipality , <: wherein a trunk highway is proposed to be constructed or improved, and to the g Y • P P P y�' governing body of each municipality adjacent to any such municipality, a report r. The 1980 containing: a statement of the need for this proposed construction or improve- ., h F '.ce,delete. ment, a description of alternate routes which were considered by the commis ' big "metrop sioner and an explanation of the advantages and disadvantages in the selection r, lie for"4 1 P g g , fifie 1984 a of any route considered. The report shall also contain for each alternate, the l;transit boa following information: general alignment and profile, approximate points of 1 `{ ,;;ion"in ti access, highway classification, an approximate cost estimate, relation to exist haws 1986. g Y PPaonsubstantiN ing and planned regional and local development and to other transportation " ; , routes and facilities, and a statement of the expected general effect on present , i "i `. and future use of the property within the corridor. Where a state trunk ' ` � Hi'' ``t� ghways, 1 highway is proposed to be constructed or improved within the metropolitan WESTLAVI � � C.J.S.High area, a copy of the report shall also be submitted to the metropolitan council. g In all areas of the state a copy of the report shall be sent to established regional, ,{,,k i. } county and municipal planning commissions in the area affected by the high t p °.. � general 1 way project. Not less than 45 nor more than 90 days, or as otherwise mutually , r ,:: agreed, after the report has been submitted, the commissioner shall hold a 1 public hearing on the proposed highway construction or improvement at such t� In genera , time and place within any municipality wherein a portion of the proposed term a construction or improvement is located, as the commissioner shall determine. C .a74 and Not less than 30 days before the hearing the commissioner shall mail notice ;1 '.in theta. thereof to the governing body of each municipality or agency entitled to receive `';and in a copy of the report, and shall cause notice of the hearing to be published at , re least once each week for two successive weeks in a newspaper or newspapers , l 1.174. : °. having general circulation in such municipalities, the second publication tobi - 1;40: com: not less than five days before the date of the hearing. The notice shall state the 'try rein a l date, time place and purpose of the hearing, shall describe the proposed o� P P rp g P P r ?1`, ,e plat lit,.. actual general location of the highway to be constructed or improved, and shah - a .t•.sed 1 state where the report may be inspected prior to the hearing by any interested ,yeme 198 . y...1 z d l „..V.'.:-, its- � `, s 7. Feit t `"k : it 1 A . ' § 161.174 TRANSPORTATION UNK HI( { shall also contain: approximate right-of-way limits; a tentative schedule for t " ,repare final A.t right-of-way acquisition, if known; proposed access points; frontage roads; , 'it:°`out plan, . separation structures and interchanges; location of utilities, when known; ' , 4t`•disapprove landscaping, illumination, a tentative construction schedule, if known; and the . `el with tl- estimated cost of the construction or improvement. The commissioner shall ,-1 x proceed in I submit more than one layout plan. Each such plan shall also be submitted to ,;isapproved, the metropolitan council if any portion of the proposed highway construction :does not or improvement is located in the metropolitan area. In all areas of the state a z1,`e completi, copy of the layout plan shall be sent to established regional, county and ,.,py of the municipal planning commissions in the area affected by the highway project. ,-ocedure pt Not less than 90 nor more than 120 days after said plan has been submitted, the ' t :;invoked i commissioner shall hold a public hearing on the proposed highway construe- , ^' yoked by ei tion or improvement at such time and place within any municipality wherein a 3 Rt ;Qld a publi portion of the construction or improvement is located, as the commissioner ,, .ring shall shall determine. The hearing shall be noticed, held and conducted in the 4 : Y .ids 1969, c. 4 manner provided in section 161.173, except that the commissioner shall mail t. A.May 3, 19f notice of the hearing only to those municipalities and agencies entitled to 1 receive a copy of the layout plan. The hearing shall be transcribed and a record thereof made available to each municipality or agency entitled to receive 11,e 1984 ame a copy of said plan. Within 180 days after the hearing is completed, the '°9'iransit board' 'K commissioner shall formally adopt a layout plan. A copy of the layout plan as fission' in the I adopted shall be submitted to each municipality or agenc entitled to receive a �`Laws 1986' c. P agency ,1 .nsubstantive t 1 copy of the proposed plan, together with the reasons for any change in the plan . The 1994 am, as presented at the hearing. Within 120 days after the receipt of the adopted ,onal transit bo. layout plan, each such municipality or agency shall submit to the commissioner r ..: its approval or disapproval of the layout plan and the reasons for such �3 disapproval, and proposed alternatives, which may include a recommendation .Highways c=2 : WESTLAW To of no highway. Such alternatives submitted by a municipality located within C.J.S.Highwa the metropolitan area shall, upon request of the municipality, be reviewed by ' , ?, the metropolitan council in order to determine whether such alternatives are likely to meet minimum federal requirements. The metropolitan council is n general 1 1. authorized to provide whatever assistance it deems advisable to the submitting 8 municipality in order to assist it in arriving at an alternative which meets s1,,� minimum federal requirements. If said plan or any part thereof is not disap % n In general 4 �il� proved within such period, the commissioner may proceed to prepare final ,. e term ager� A. ' ' •46.1.173 and construction plans and specifications for the highway construction or improve ; ment consistent with the adopted layout plan, and may acquire the necessary 4_ . .; F i right-of-way. If the layout plan or any part thereof is disapproved by any 1.175. A € r determines to proceed with the - i, on the r municipality or agency, and the commissioner p pon� e:,. plan without modifications, the commissioner shall proceed in the manner;;! � of the mt provided in section 161.175. On determining to proceed with the plan with $ „ .■y'of the m , modifications, the commissioner shall submit the modified layout plan to the`-.`4„; 4t proposal t 117,- municipalities and agencies entitled to receive the original layout plan in the',, ,,,:. •member. t = manner described above, for approval or disapproval by each such municipality ' •Its` of sal rt or agency within 60 days after receipt of the modified layout plan. If the;x a't'e'n.or. WI h modified layout plan or any part thereof is not disapproved by any municipals ' s i!' cipalities ILA-, or agency within 60 days after its receipt, the commissioner may proceed to ,ed appoi 200 s t. 1= � s 4 s tr( w O f RUNK HIGHWAY SYSTEM § 161.175 t e- a : F ; fo ,prepare final construction plans and specifications consistent with the modified ` tds,,� .}ayout plan, and may acquire the necessary right-of-way. If the modified plan wn, = yt ,is disapproved by any municipality and the commissioner determines to pro- th ; ;ceed with the plan without additional modification, the commissioner shall mall §" „proceed in t he manner provided in section 161.175. If the layout plan is l to `s;disapproved, either as originally submitted or as modified and the commission- ionl',; ' er does not act pursuant to section 161.175, within one year from the date of 1 to a .;;-,:,,,„-„x the completion of the hearing, any objecting municipality entitled to receive a ind ' copy of the layout plan by virtue of this section may invoke the appellate eet procedure pursuant to section 161.175, in the same manner as the same might 1< t the ;be invoked by the commissioner- In the event the appellate procedure is uc �v invoked by either the commissioner or the municipality, the commissioner shall in a ,7'hold a public hearing prior to the appointment of an appeal board. Such 1'4 , 1S mer = hearing shall be limited to the proposed alternative layout plans. �. the �:: Laws 1969, c. 312, § 4, eff. May 8, 1969. Amended by Laws 1984, c. 654, art. 3, § 53, l to 1 eff. May 3, 1984; Laws 1986, c. 444; Laws 1994, c. 628, art. 3, § 11, eff. Oct. 1, 1994. da'=','=-� and Statutory Notes Historical ical a Hstr ethe The 1984 amendatory act substituted "region- shall also be submitted to the metropolitan Che al u:atsit board" for"meu-opolitan transit corn- council". n as mission in he fourth sentence. 2 r Laws 1994, c. 628, art. 3, § l0, provides in Laws 1986,c. 444 authorized the removal of in a lies -ion s�-. ve a part that 11 (amending this section))applies a § ( g nonsubstantive gender specific references. the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Henne- pin, 40 :,.., ,,,4 The 1994 amendment removed "and the re- in,Ramse ,Scott,and Washington. gional transit board" following Each such plan P Y uner, such - _ Library References 1, - , ttton r t� . Highways Ca23, 103. ti WESTLAW ESTL - `r � Aw To sic No.200, d by r2`:' C.J.S.Highways§§ 39, 180 to 184, 186. ' d � are, ' Notes of Decisions In general municipal planning corn- eneral regional, county and m p p g b 1 e , g Y tang missions in the area affected by the highway neeta: ,; 4,,' project, and in addition thereto the metropoli- , �, tan council and the metropolitan transit corn- asap I• In general mission where the highway project is within the , ftna° a ,"The term agency as used in this section and metropolitan area. Op.Atty.Gen., 229-D-15, s ,, rov f� §§ 161.173 and 161.177, refers to established May 6, 1970. ,�f. � b y ani,i x:.161,175, Appeal board h th- ; , v-"Upon the request of the commissioner an appeal board shall be appointed. tnne t;; ,, .One of the members shall be selected by the governor and one by the governing ...Z. wit .body of the municipality involved. If more than one municipality is involved in o t114' - the proposal the governing bodies of the municipalities involved shall appoint n th ' one member. This appointment shall be made by resolutions of the governing ; pall-1,1'c_ ''bodies of said municipalities which resolutions shall be submitted to the it tilt, ,..,.,,,,,...,governor. When the governor has received resolutions from a majority of the pah "d unicipalities involved designating the same person, said person shall be ed t 3-„,,,,, eemed appointed. If a majority of the municipalities which must include all .fit, J Y 201 44..' ' ,If 1 1 . E cr § 161.175 TRANSPORTATION , • >�TRUNK I vt disapproving municipalities have not agreed on the same person and submitted ,t,' Ito compel -1 .--_ such resolutions to the governor within 60 days after receipt of the commission '''" r' vidence er's request for an appeal board by the commissioner, then the chief justice of pnay be n the supreme court shall appoint such member upon application by the commis �� ,*including sioner upon five days' notice to all municipalities involved. The two members ' -'' '` desires to so selected shall select a third member. If they cannot agree on a third j roceedin, member within 30 days after the last member was appointed, then the chief i,' the detern justice of the supreme court shall appoint the third member upon application of n r im of c( the commissioner after five days' notice to the first two members. The three '�-use a re y � ca persons so selected and appointed shall serve as a highway appeal board and as to pf the bog such board they shall choose a chair from among their members and they shall :;,:ii ' conditions have such duties and exercise such powers as are hereinafter provided. Mem H Subd. 3 bers of the board shall not be employees or consultants of any counties, the ; ghway a k state of Minnesota, or any of the municipalities involved in the proposal J. for ti Laws 1969,c. 312,§ 5,eff, May 8, 1969. Amended by Laws 1986, c.444. members s E 111e perfon 1 Historical and Statutory Notes .y hearin Laws 1986, c. 444, authorized the removal of .t Subd. 4. nonsubstantive gender specific references. appeal bo< plan and Library References ? portion, i( Highways«57. ... disbursem, WESTLAW Topic No.200. C.J.S.Highways§ 78. t -..,!;7'= reimburse( F� Laws 1969, 161.176. Powers of appeal board S, ,' Subdivision 1. Hearing. The highway appeal board shall, on notice to the commissioner and the affected municipalities, hold an appeal hearing on the - _,Laws 1986. entire highway layout plan as proposed by the commissioner, and alternates I Y; ,( nonsubstantin consistent with minimum federal requirements that are presented by the 3,t disapproving municipalities. The board shall take into consideration all as `4,r, >>; pects of the proposal including highway design, economic development, aesth- etics, y Highways< 1,:::: �WESTLAVI urban and rural planning, agriculture, transportation planning, and all C J.S.High other factors concerning highways. After considering all the evidence in the t_ record, the appeal board shall issue an order approving the commissioner's , 461.177. # xi proposed highway layout plan or one of the alternatives. The appeal board ,, shall be limited in its ruling to any previously submitted layout plan of the Not less commissioner or an alternate presented by the community in response to the; eipt of : commissioner. A copy of the order and a memorandum setting forth the k a ,nk high- reasons therefor shall be filed with the secretary of state, and shall be mailed t9,;" , . yenning 1 the commissioner and each municipality or agency entitled to receive notice of K out plan the layout hearing. If the cost is not substantially in excess of the programmed• 1,, structio estimates for projects included in the commissioner's current constructio' : !„ such p program the commissioner shall construct the plan approved by the board ii;s. � �: i €i ii e UNK HIGHWAY SYSTEM § 161.177 mit. .'7t b o compel the production of books, records, and other evidence. The rules of ntssto, -evidence and procedure for the trial of civil matters shall apply, but such rules tstice r may be modified by the board when it is deemed necessary. All evidence, t s ', ' om cludin records and documents in the possession of the board of which it Y iembe 'desires to avail itself, shall be offered and made a part of the record in the a thir,t proceeding, and no other factual information or evidence shall be considered in to chi r the determination of the matter. Documentary evidence may be received in the k ation � - form of copies or excerpts, or by incorporation by reference. The board shall to Wrt cause a record of all proceedings before it to be made and filed with the chair and . of the board. Copies thereof shall be made available upon such terms and , ey sh r .I' ' `conditions as the board shall prescribe. Me ! ,i4$ :.,, Subd. 3. Compensation; reimbursement of expenses. Members of the t ies, 1 '''F' highway appeal board shall receive g Y Pp per diem compensation in the amount of 1 -opos « a?`$100 for the time spent in disposing of matters presented to the board. Board 3. r members shall be reimbursed for all reasonable expenses incurred by them in i the performance of their duties including all costs incurred in connection with ja ,, any hearing. k E , Subd. 4. Expenses of parties. Each party to the appeal shall submit to the 'a' - 1 - appeal board an itemized list of the expenses incurred in preparing its layout # plan and presenting the appeal. The appeal board may determine what portion, if any, of a municipality's expenses incurred for the services and disbursements of persons not regularly employed by the municipality will be i reimbursed from the trunk hi g Y hwa fund. 0 Laws 1969,c. 312,§ 6, eff.May 8, 1969. Amended by Laws 1986,c. 444. $ , to th _' Historical and Statutory Notes ' on the 1 s Laws 1986, c. 444, authorized the removal of e nonsubstantive gender specific ecific references.' 'by the' I all as G Library References ` j " Highways X57. and 4',sWESTLAW Topic No.200. In th ti C.J.S.Highways§ 78. ,loner',' i 161.177. Construction plans and specifications bo t . s: � of , ,� Not less than 120 days before the date specified by the commissioner for the p to =i ;`i receipt of construction bids for the construction or improvement of any state 4t rth trunk highway within any municipality, the commissioner shall submit to the af� , Ailed h i governing body of each municipality or agency entitled to receive a copy of the N:4 Dttce !,, ; layout plan therefor under section 161.174, a copy of as complete a set of ,t amm ' 1 ,,,,..e.-.,,construction plans as is possible which will be issued to prospective bidders. ructto' ,.All such plans shall be in accordance with the highway construction or )ard i';-. , ' improvement layout plan as approved under section 161.174, or section , 161.176. If the construction plans are not in accordance with the layout plan lembe i- as approved, the governing body of any municipality or agency entitled to as, an!1 ,,receive notice of the hearing under section 161,174, within 60 days after the t' 203 A Vim2°� Y TP aki: : 11, .....,4 Minnesota Statutes 2004, 161.164 Page 1 of 2 Minnesota Statutes 2004, Table of Chapters Table of contents for Chapter 161 161.164 Final layout approval process. Subdivision 1. Submission of final layout. Before proceeding with the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of any route on the trunk highway system lying within any municipality, the commissioner shall submit to its governing body a final layout and project report covering the purpose, route location, and proposed design of the highway. The final layout must be submitted as part of a report containing any supporting data that the commissioner deems helpful to the governing body in reviewing the final layout submitted. The supporting data must include a good faith cost estimate of all the costs in which the governing body is expected to participate. The final layout must be submitted before final decisions are reached so that meaningful early input can be obtained from the municipality. Subd. 2 . Governing body action. (a) Within 15 days of receiving a final layout from the commissioner, the governing body shall schedule a public hearing on the final layout. The governing body shall, within 60 days of receiving a final layout from the commissioner, conduct a public hearing at which the Department of Transportation shall present the final layout for the project. The governing body shall give at least 30 days' notice of the public hearing. (b) Within 90 days from the date of the public hearing, the governing body shall approve or disapprove the final layout in writing, as follows: (1) If the governing body approves the final layout or does not disapprove the final layout in writing within 90 days, in which case the final layout is deemed to be approved, the commissioner may continue the project development. (2) If the final construction plans contain changes in access, traffic capacity, or acquisition of permanent right-of-way from the final layout approved by the governing body, the commissioner shall resubmit the portion of the final construction plans where changes were made to the governing body. The governing body must approve or disapprove the changes, in writing, within 60 days from the date the commissioner submits them. (3) If the governing body disapproves the final layout, the commissioner may make modifications requested by the municipality, decide not to proceed with the project, or refer the final layout to an appeal board. The appeal board shall consist of one member appointed by the commissioner, one member appointed by the governing body, and a third member agreed upon by both the commissioner and the governing body. If the commissioner and the governing body cannot agree upon the third member, the chief justice of the Supreme Court shall appoint a third member within 14 days of the request of the commissioner http://wwvv.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/161/164.html 10/18/2004 Minnesota Statutes 2004, 161.164 Page 2 of 2 to appoint the third member. 1110 Subd. 3. Appeal board. Within 30 days after referral of the final layout, the appeal board shall hold a hearing at which the commissioner and the governing body may present the case for or against approval of the final layout referred. Not later than 60 days after the hearing, the appeal board shall recommend approval, recommend approval with modifications, or recommend disapproval of the final layout, making additional recommendations consistent with state and federal requirements as it deems appropriate. It shall submit a written report containing its findings and recommendations to the commissioner and the governing body. HIST: 2001 c 191 s 5 Copyright 2004 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/161/164.html 10/18/2004 • • Minnesota Statutes 2004, 161.166 Page 1 of 2 Minnesota Statutes 2004, Table of Chapters 130.--"‘) Table of contents for Chapter 161_. 161.166 Commissioner action; other highways. Subdivision 1. Applicability. This section applies to trunk highways that are not interstate highways. Subd. 2. Action on approved final layout. If the appeal board recommends approval of the final layout or does not submit its findings or recommendations within 60 days of the hearing, in which case the the final layout is deemed approved, the commissioner may prepare substantially similar final construction plans and proceed with the project. If the final construction plans change access or traffic capacity or require additional acquisition of right-of-way from the final layout approved by the appeal board, the commissioner shall submit the portion of the final construction plan that shows the changes, to the governing body for its approval or disapproval under section 161.16.4, subdivision 2. Subd. 3 . Action on final layout approved with changes. (a) If the appeal board approves the final layout with modifications, the commissioner may: (1) prepare final construction plans including the modifications, notify the governing body, and proceed with the project; (2) decide not to proceed with the project; or (3) prepare a new final layout and resubmit it to the governing body for approval or disapproval under section 161.164, subdivision 2. (b) If the final construction plans contain changes in access or traffic capacity or require additional acquisition of permanent right-of-way from the final layout reviewed by the appeal board or the governing body, the commissioner shall resubmit the portion of the final construction plans that shows the changes, to the governing body for its approval or disapproval under section 161.164, subdivision 2. Subd. 4. Action on disapproved final layout. If the appeal board disapproves the final layout, the commissioner may: (1) decide not to proceed with the project; or (2) prepare a new final layout and submit it to the governing body for approval or disapproval under section 161.164, subdivision 2. Subd. 5. Final construction plans issued. The commissioner shall send a complete set of final construction plans to the municipality at least 45 days before the bid opening for informational purposes. http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/161/166.html 10/18/2004 y f • 1111 • 15" 1 Metnorandum of Understanting Between S �� The Minnesota Department of Transportation And Northern States Power Company dfb a X.c l Energy Reno�>al of ar Ye ;,.:nlo:dery Facility As a part of the St. Croix giver Crossing Project, the Minnesota Department of Transportation ("MnDOT")will remove from the Northern Stater Power Company's dl'h:a Xcel Energy (NSP) Allen S. King generating plant the Barge Unloader Facility including, hut not limited to, the entire barge unloading structure, mooring cells, and support cells, the truss and conveyor belt system between the €nlo<ade:r and'Transfer House If-t, ("Facility"). The Pivot Cell will be lets in place. The entire removal of the Barge Unloader Facility will follow the completion of the new river crossing bridge construction. 1.i. NSP will designate an NSP employee to work with M.r€.l:",f:,T and it's Contractor to coordinate all on site activities during the removal of the Barge Unloader 1~acilit.y. 1.2. NSP may salvage any portion of the inplace Barge Unloader Facility but must complete such work at least sl months prior to MnDOT advertising the bridge contract. SP shall also notify - MnIX)T of any major modifications to the inplace Barge Unloader Facility and associated eft' quipment such that potential contractors will be fully aware of the scope of work required/Or the Facility's removal. 1.3. The Pivot Cell will remain in place with no modifications except as may he required for the removal of other facilities and equipment removed from the Facility. The Pivot Cell will be ietl in place to allow its use as a future mooring Facility for barges that NSP may need to place at the site. 1.4. Coal spillage located under and around. the 1.arge 1.nloader Facility will be left in place and will not be part of the removal of the Barge Unloader Facility. 1.5. The mooring cells gravel contents will not he removed by MnIX: f and will be allowed to remain on the river bottom fur aquatic habitat. 1..8. The sheet piling of the cells will either be pulled entirely or cut off near the river bottom and removed at Mn!Dal.,s descretion. 1.7. The concrete cap on the cells (except.ih.r the Pivot cell)will be removed. _tl. All�m�agteriaals removed ltom the Barge Unloader Facility will become the property of M.rtDOT's Contractor. • 1.9. The opening left in Trarisle?r House t41 by the removal of the Barge Unloader Facility shall be repaired by MraDO'f"s Contractor. 1. a + • • `:F Facility as a Flame Sta3•=ir?cY Area 2. Use 3�t the�<€rwYw l..€�.�.��.r. � t .......��,,..�,., 21. An Extradosed Bridge Type is recommended for the preferred new river crossing hridg,e type. Construction of a new river crossing bridge will recline barge oriented aictivitiea. Because of this, the Barge t it€loader Yaciiit,, would become a barge staging area where barges used for the construction of the new river crossing would he moored. � 2,2, Recent evolution of a wetland located near the new river crossing has eliminated that area as a \ project.�� potential staging area, creating a shortage of available staging areas for this p. ject, li additional staging areas are necessary, qtr€DOT will contact NSP during the design phase about the availability of a NSP site known as the "West Construction Building Area", if this kji\ site is to be used as s another staging area access to that site is only allowed from the (7\41)\ 'Q Emergency Vehicle Access Road via the entrance of of TH 95 at the Wastes ,ter Treatment Plant. 2.3. NSP will designate an NSP employee to work with Mnt:)O1 and ifs Contractor to coordinate all on site activities during the staged construction of the new river cross in bridge., 3. Thsclo re • NSP acknowledges that the only known potentially hazardous waste issues associated with the Facility is the lead paint coating. All PCB oil transformers have been removed. from. the • Facility, Any transformers on the Facility now contain only nor?-lr.aaar'do uH transformer oil. 3,2. The Barge Unloader Facility steel structure is covered with lead based paint. MnDOT will he solely responsible for and will use the appropriate disposal recycling method.s for removing and disposing these materials. M.rt[X::il''s Contractor will comply with IvIniX rs Standard Specifications for Construction during the.removal and disposal of these materials. t In the event that lead or lead coatings are detected on Son-steel components or if other .u3. materials that may be classified as hazardous waste are detected on the barge. =loader Facility then :Molt' must immediately notify NSP and such notification must be documented in writing, NSP will be allowed the option to approve of the disposal of such hazardous waste or dispose of such hazardous wastes at its own selected disposal site. 4, Trant.lbrir ers, Electrical trinsforrners located on the barge =loader Facility will be removed and disposed of'by .NSP, approximately 3 months prior to the use of the Barge Unloader Facility as a staging area • 2 • 5, Mum, 1110e.yti §.t. ha critty zr t:l4llilk y i s i 4 b'b.e o•'intdh u ci tieb c f r€thm e tB3e a ry eSr v:,^4=I£ 1r w h tee. rva y a€'c et es 2: ;.rs and from the l aars�e i)nic�ade:i' 'acilit,, a c1 ork areas to l fnD 3T an its €rs>.rniiaet; r i �F cost to MnD£:n, A potential temporary i'srfary acct"ss is located d a djiie"ent to the northern property lime of NSP on an existing gravel road (Emergency Vehicle Access R.cad). Access to this area \ is only allowed from the Emergency Vehicle Access Road via the entrance off of TH 95 at the Wastewater'`Treatment fant a to temporary access. �,�. The panics agree ,:i�€:�:iaarc�ia�aitc. for ii�a�., and£���z�.rzie£� ..e��f the fe�'ips , G€wt 1 ,eanit, NSP will issue >a teinporary occupancy petit tat no cost to MnDO'f a Mn:l;, OT's Contractor to conduct the barge staging and barge =loader ;.. ,ility removal and tassNidaate d work. uDO I' and M.nDO f`s Contractor will he responsible, at its es. eraser for securing from any other organ£,itions or agencies including but not limited to the Mintiest to Department of Natural Resources, i . S. Army Corp of Engineers, S. Fish and Wildlife Service,any other permits that may be required to conduct the barge unloader facility removal and associated work. 7, Nesting, Situ, NSP >lll relocate the Osprey nesting site presently located on the badge €.i£.:1ea:€r€:r Facility. NS?will also relocate the camera and its associated equipment. t3. :Ei.ii h& lAnDOT and its Contractor will determine the appropriate €ins€efrarne for the Staging Work • and Facility's Removal and will coordinate these schedules and removal activities with NSP. The Staging Work and Removal Work, once started, diall occur in a timely manner and shall in no way interfere with the operation of the King plant; in the event of any conflicts the King plant operations shalt have priority. The Staging Work will correspond with the construction timc£aa£ne of the new river crossing bridge, The Barge Unloaade, Removal work shall be completed within 12 months following, the opening oi'the new river crossing bridge. 9. Security,. MnDOT recognizes s the need for NSP to maintain security in and around their operation. Following the Staging Work and removal of the Barge Unloader Facility, M:nDO"l" will assure that a lockable gate is placed on this emergency vehicle access mad and that NSF will receive keys or any other means necessary to open the gate. ; triDOI and NSP will review and evaluate the need for a security guard patrol during the timing of this MOU. The review and evaluation will occu r no les i than 60 daw,prior to the Staging Work. t-a io. Boat Ramp. 'The St. Croix River Crossing Project is currently not planning for the construction of a 0` boat ramp adjacent to the King Plant. A Boat Ramp location study, environmental study, and wetland mitigation is anticipated to he performed by MnIDNR prior to any boat ramp construction within the riverway. s t. ta.merget�c�y «'la ct s, Emergency vehicle access to the King plant will be provided during the Staging Work and removal of the Barge Unloader Facility. The present. route user the gravel road south of the treatment plant to enter the King Plant, MoDOT will continue to provide a similar emergency vehicle roadway. Following the Staging Work and removal of the Barge 1. nloaader F ac:ility, W£.l:; I will assure that a lockable gate is placed t. on this emergency vehicle access road and that NSF will receive keys or any other means necessary to open the gate. NSF will continue to he responsible tdr the snow removal from the emergency vehicle acc `s. • • IsAINAt with this zognarmAum thiderstardiog Northern States Power Company, :Minnesota Department of Transportation 3-.31b/a!Xcel Ertergy is 7/ Br 61494 Br. , 441.e Matt Fritsch Patrick flushes Director-.Allen S.King Plant Metro Division Engineer Mite: '1-1B-ZcOr- Date; • Attachments: Preferred.lidternative Layout Current:Project Schedule woeyr&x,x,19- 5 • DRAFT *** 0219106 *** D A.F'i` • St. Croix River Crossing Project Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) For the Establishment of a Water Quality Management Advisory Committee The Minnesota Department of Transpo. , ► s DOT) in cooperation with the Wisconsin Department of Transpo '.n (WisDOT) and .ther agencies are developing a project to construct a new cross'. g of the St. Croix : '-er between Stillwater, Minnesota and Town of St. Joseph, Wiscon''t as desc •a n the St. Croix River Crossing project's 2006 Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement(SFEIS). I. PURPOSE OF MOU Set the framework for the development of a Water Quality Management Advisory Committee for the St. Croix River Crossing Project. • II. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE OBJECTIVES a. Provide a coordinated process for water quality permits and considerations required under the multi jurisdictional environment for this project. b. Optimize water quality management funding opportunities through a collaborative multi jurisdictional, multi-funding source environment. c. Investigate the potential benefits, impacts and opportunities for a Water Quality Trading demonstration project(s)within the St. Croix basin. III. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPRESENTATION Representatives from the following groups will be invited to serve on the St. Croix River Crossing Project Water Quality Advisory Committee; a. Minnesota Department of Transportation(Mn/DOT)—Lead Agency b. Wisconsin Department of Transportation(WisDOT) c. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) d. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WisDNR) e. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) f. US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) g. US Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) Page 1 of 3 • • • • h. US Coast Guard(USCG) Si. National Park Service(NPS) j. Minnesota Center for Environment Advocacy(MCEA) k. St. Croix County 1. Washington County Conservation District(WCD) i. Middle St. Croix WMO ii. Brown's Creek WMO m. City of Oak Park Heights 5 C U" n. City of Stillwater o. Metropolitan Council Enviro ntal Services (MCES) p. Others as needed IV. WATER QUALITY PERMITS/APPROVALS The attached list of permits and approvals are anticipated being needed for this project. The Water Quality Management Advisory Committee will address those permits that have a water quality component; V. RESOURCE COMMITMENT OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS a. Provide feedback, direction, and support to committee objectives, b. Share data and analysis, c. Attend periodic meetings and participate in committee activities, and • d. Enter into cooperative funding agreements where appropriate. VI. TIMING The Water Quality Management Advisory Committee will be assembled after a Record of Decision has been issued and would be anticipated to remain active up to the start of construction when the final permits are issued. Advisory Committee involvement would then continue through construction, on an as-needed basis. Early involvement will include identification of permit requirements, issues, conflicts, timing, and opportunities. Initial meetings are expected monthly, later meetings will likely be less frequent. Attached—SFEIS Table 16-2"Agency Permits, Approvals, and other Required Documents" Page 2 of 3 • • • Signatures signify agency concurrence with this Memorandum of Understanding By: - / /06 By: - / /06 Khani Sahebjam Scott Humrickhouse, WisDNR Mn/DOT Metro District Engineer Director of the West Central Region By: -_/ /06 Dale Homuth, MnDNR Regional Hydrologist By: - / /06 Tom Bradley, NPS Superintendent of the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway 1110 S By: - / /06 Leo Raudys, MPCA Division Manager of Regional Division Page 3 of 3 • • TABLE 16-2 • AGENCY PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND OTHER REQUIRED DOCUMENTS FEDERAL Advisory Council on Historic • Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act—Amended Preservation Memorandum of Agreement(refer to Appendix G of this SFEIS) Federal Highway Administration • Supplemental EIS(Draft and Final) • Section 4(f)Evaluations—Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (Draft and Final) • Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act—Amended Memorandum of Agreement • Supplemental EIS Record of Decision National Park Service • Section 7(a)of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act—Evaluation(refer to Appendix F of this SFEIS) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Section 404 of the Clean Water Act-Permit(fill in U.S.waters) • Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act—Amended Memorandum of Agreement U.S. Coast Guard • Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act-Permit(navigable waters) • Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act—Permit(navigable waters) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Biological Opinion(refer to Appendix C of this SFEIS) STATE MN Department of • Amended Scoping Decision Document Transportation • Supplemental EIS(Draft and Final)and Section 4(f)Evaluations— Department of Transportation Act of 1966(Draft and Final) • Supplemental EIS Adequacy Determination • Noise Standards Exemption • Wetland Conservation Act(WCA) WIS Department of • Supplemental EIS(Draft and Final)and Section 4(f)Evaluations— Transportation Department of Transportation Act of 1966(Draft and Final) MN Department of Natural • Public Waters Permit Resources • Mussel Relocation Permit • Special Permit to Remove an Osprey Nest • Water Appropriation Permit(if needed) MN Pollution Control Agency • Noise Standards Exemption • Apply for Section 401 of the Clean Water Act-Water Quality Certification • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Permit(NPDES/SDS) WIS Department of Natural • Section 401 of Clean Water Act Water Quality Certification/Project Resources Concurrence Letter(through Wis/DOT—WDNR Cooperative Agreement liaison process) • Scientific Collector Permit(for surveys, species relocations,etc.) • Authorization for Taking Endangered/Threatened Species(required jeopardy determination) • Air Quality Construction Permit(if needed) MN State Historic Preservation • Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act—Amended Office Memorandum of Agreement WIS State Historic Preservation • Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act— Amended Office Memorandum of Agreement JANUARY 2006 St. Croix River Crossing Project 16-8 Supplemental Final EIS • TABLE 16-2 continued 110 AGENCY PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND OTHER REQUIRED DOCUMENTS REGIONAL Twin Cities Metropolitan Council • Controlled Access Approval LOCAL Washington County • County Right-of-Way Permit City of Oak Park Heights • Municipal Consent • Floodplain Management City of Stillwater • Municipal Consent • Floodplain Management City of Bayport • Municipal Consent • Floodplain Management Local Watershed Districts • Permits/Coordination of Grading and Drainage Plans/Dewatering/Floodplain Management Local Watershed Management • Coordination of Grading and Drainage Plans/Dewatering/Floodplain Organizations Management St. Croix County • Coordination of State Trunk Highway changes and local road alterations • Floodplain Management Town of St.Joseph • Coordination of State Trunk Highway changes and local road alterations • JANUARY 2006 St. Croix River Crossing Project 16-9 Supplemental Final EIS . / DRAFT 02/10/06 D RA.I,T 0 St. Croix River Crossing Project III Memorandum of Understanding For the Implementation of Growth Management Mitigation Items Between the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WisDNR), The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) And the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) The St. Croix River Crossing Project (Pro'- - 's ocated between the • 'es of Stillwater and Oak Park Heights, in Washington County, Minn sot. .., -- -, 'nto the Town of`.t. Joseph in St. Croix County, Wisconsin. The Project crosses the -•erally designated L•wer St. .'x National Scenic Riverway and its associated outstanding scenic, ecreational and geolo : : es. This project was selected as one of thirteen federally designated Priority = •' - . • -r 'resident Bush's Executive Order#13274 elevating the project's visibility and significance nationally. • The Project is located in rapidly growing communities of St. Croix County, Wisconsin, which is one of O Wisconsin's fastest growing areas and Washington County, Minnesota which is located within the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Parties to this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) recognize that to improve the protection and enhancement of the area's unique natural, cultural and historic resources, an important connection exists between local land use decisions and the tools available to create well- informed decisions. This MOU provides financial support for the development of various studies, plans, tools and activities to help address the needs of local governments to improve their abilities to manage growth. I. PURPOSE/GOAL In order to address the potential negative impacts to area resources, including water resources, and specifically the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, from accelerated growth in St. Croix County influenced by the Project, a primary purpose of this MOU is to provide support to assist local governments in improving their growth management tools, including local plans, ordinances and other related activities. The goal of this MOU is to promote natural, cultural and historic resource protection. In recognition of its expertise in environmental protection and stewardship, the WisDNR has been identified as the agency best suited to lead the activities covered under this MOU. As part of the Project, funding in the amount of$400,000 will be provided to WisDNR, funding in the amount of$2.25 million will be provided to St. Croix County for its own use or distribution to others under this MOU and funding in the amount of$50,000 will be provided to the University of Wisconsin- 1 River Falls (UW-River Falls) to help meet this goal. For administrative efficiency, the source of all . funds to be provided under this MOU will be from Mn/DOT Project appropriations. Any monies received pursuant to this MOU shall be deposited, by the respective recipients, in accounts to be used specifically to accomplish the activities described in this MOU. The account established by St. Croix County shall be known as the "St. Croix River Crossing Project Growth Management MOU Fund" (FUND). II. ADMINISTRATION A. Authority and Responsibility. In its leadership role for this MOU, WisDNR will have the responsibility to review and concur with proposals made by St. Croix County, the Town of St. Joseph and UW-River Falls prior to expenditure of funds earmarked for their respective use. WisDNR will also have the responsibility to review and concur with any proposals submitted by State Trunk Highway (STH) 64 Corridor Communities (Town of St. Joseph, Town of Somerset, Village of Somerset, City of New Richmond, Village of Star Prairie and Village of Deer Park) under the "Study of Sanitary Wastewater Treatment Facility Needs" and "Planning, Ordinance Development and Implementation of Local Stormwater Management Programs" sections of this MOU. As part of this review effort, WisDNR will consult with the Growth Management Advisory Team as described in paragraph C below. B. Funding Arrangements. The source of all funds to be provided under this MOU will be from Mn/DOT Project appropriations. Mn/DOT will negotiate and enter into specific agmh WDN , Cx Con and UW-River These agreements and any 410 other ree agreements witents executed is R to St.accomplish roi u the ty items in this MOU Falls.shall be done in accordance with applicable laws, describing the financial arrangements and administrative details to S carry out the intentions expressed in this MOU. For administrative efficiency (except for the funds to be used by the WisDNR under Mitigation Activities III., A., iii., a., "Soil and Water Modeling and Monitoring" and for the funds to be used by UW-River Falls under III., B., ii., b., for work done under the Western Wisconsin Intergovernmental Collaborative) St. Croix County shall serve as fiscal agent for the Mitigation Activities contained in this MOU. The specific agreements referenced above may be finalized and funds transferred, but funds for use by St. Croix County, the Town of St. Joseph, UW-River Falls or any STH 64 Corridor Communities may not be expended until specific proposals for use are reviewed and concurred with by WisDNR as described in paragraph A of this section. In addition, no monies shall be provided to any of the earmarked recipients any earlier than 180 days following the Record of Decision for the Project. It is the goal of the parties to this MOU that all recipients of funds in this MOU expend or commit all such funds within five years of receipt. Any extensions will be subject to approval by Mn/DOT, WisDOT and FHWA. C. Establishment of a Growth Management Advisory Team (TEAM). A Growth Management Advisory Team(TEAM) shall be created for the purpose of providing advice to the WisDNR in its review of proposals by St. Croix County, the Town of St. Joseph, UW- River Falls, and the STH 64 Corridor Communities to implement actions described in this MOU. Representatives from the National Park Service, WisDOT, St. Croix Basin Water • Resources Planning Team (chair or designee), St. Croix County, the Town of St. Joseph, 2 UW-River Falls, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Officer and other interested groups will be invited by WisDNR to participate as members of the TEAM. WisDNR will convene the TEAM to determine final procedures and criteria for implementing TEAM responsibilities. The TEAM will meet as needed to review proposals, hear progress reports, and help resolve such disputes or other issues as may arise concerning the implementation of this MOU. D. Variation from MOU List of Activities. Members of the TEAM and/or other local governments may propose growth management activities that vary from those described in Section III below. The WisDNR, in consultation with the TEAM, will consider such changes only if it is determined that such proposals would make an equal or greater contribution toward achievement of the primary goals of this MOU. WisDNR will seek agreement from Mn/DOT, WisDOT and FHWA for proposed changes in activities. E. Annual Reports. WisDNR will provide separate annual reports to Mn/DOT, WisDOT and FHWA in a mutually acceptable format describing its activities, an account of its expenditures of funds, activities of the TEAM, activities funded pursuant to this MOU, and results achieved. F. Local Government Participation. This MOU provides for the allocation of significant portions of the FUND to be provided to St. Croix County and the Town of St. Joseph. Actions listed below describe the activities and funding amounts to be dispersed. To receive funding, St. Croix County and the Town of St. Joseph will submit proposals to WisDNR • describing how and when such funds will be used and expected benefits. St. Croix County and the Town of St. Joseph have the option, and are encouraged, to submit joint partnership proposals between themselves or involving others. Upon WisDNR concurrence in the expenditure of funds, recipients will be required to submit quarterly reports to WisDNR describing progress on activities, results and remaining elements. This report will be included in the WisDNR annual report as noted in item E. above. G. UW-River Falls Participation. This MOU provides an appropriation to UW-River Falls to facilitate regional intergovernmental coordination on land use and environmental issues. UW-River Falls will submit an application to the WisDNR, who will consult with the TEAM to determine if actions proposed will achieve desired goals. Upon WisDNR concurrence, UW-River Falls may expend funds and will be required to submit quarterly reports to WisDNR describing progress on activities, results and remaining elements. This report will be included in the WisDNR annual report as noted in item E. above. M. MITIGATION ACTIVITIES The parties agree that the following kinds of activities are important to improving the growth management and environmental stewardship in the project area and that funds should be allocated as specified except to the extent adjustments are made in the manner specified in Section II., D. of this MOU. A. Water Resources Planning/Protection- $1.2 Million 3 i. Introduction. The St. Croix Basin Water Resources Planning Team (an interagency cooperative of federal, tribal, state, local and private partners referred to hereinafter as the "Basin Team") has recommended a 20% reduction in total phosphorus loading to surface • waters in the basin and has developed a comprehensive plan (2004) to achieve this goal. In 2004, the Basin Team jointly submitted, through the Governor of Wisconsin, an application to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a $1.46 million grant under the 2005 Targeted Watersheds Grant Program to implement high priority phosphorus reduction strategies,which was not funded. ii. Recognition of the EPA Grant Request and Application. The parties to this MOU expressly recognize that the EPA application is an important request for advancing the water quality goals of the Lower St. Croix River watershed. Parties will actively assist and support the Basin Team's efforts to obtain prompt funding for this application from the EPA and other sources as appropriate. iii. Fund Allocation. The Basin Team chair (or designee) will be invited to participate as a member of the TEAM before final funding decisions are made to assure consistency with water resources protection goals throughout the basin. These funds shall be allocated as follows: a. Soil and Water Modeling and Monitoring. $400,000 will be provided to the WisDNR to assist the Basin Team in soil and water modeling and monitoring of Lake St. Croix to help develop and implement phosphorus reduction strategies. WisDNR will consult with the Basin Team to determine if, given the failure to receive a 2005 EPA Targeted Watersheds Grant or other factors, the funds would be more useful for other Basin Team identified water quality improvement projects. The Basin Team will be given the opportunity to submit a modified proposal for WisDNR and TEAM consideration. b. Study of Sanitary Wastewater Treatment Facility Needs. $400,000 from the FUND for the distribution to STH 64 Corridor Communities in St. Croix County to study sanitary wastewater treatment facility needs or upgrade/expansion alternatives that accommodate projected population growth while protecting human health and water resources. Upon the release of funds from Mn/DOT to St. Croix County, the WisDNR will notify these communities and invite them to submit proposals for funding. WisDNR will consult with the TEAM in review of such proposals. Upon WisDNR concurrence with such proposals, St. Croix County will arrange for the transfer of associated monies from the FUND to such communities. WisDNR expressly represents that receipt of these monies shall in no way affect eligibility of local communities for low-interest environmental loans administered by WisDNR for wastewater treatment facility construction/upgrades. As an alternative to, or in concert with, the activities described in the preceding paragraph, WisDNR may, in consultation with the TEAM, have St. Croix County arrange for the distribution of monies from the FUND to conduct a broad regional evaluation of domestic wastewater disposal issues. This effort would include evaluation of current and projected future municipal and non-municipal wastewater discharges to surface waters and groundwater, review of existing surface and 4 groundwater discharge standards, assessment of risks to human health and water • quality and development of recommendations for a long-term, cost-effective and environmentally sound management approach. The geographic scope and other details of such study would be determined in consultation with the TEAM, but would, at a minimum, include the Lower Apple River and Lower Willow River watersheds. c. Planning, Ordinance Development and Implementation of Local Stormwater Management Programs. $400,000 from the FUND for distribution to STH 64 Corridor Communities for purposes of planning, ordinance development, and implementation of local stormwater management program(s) to protect surface water quality. Upon the release of funds from Mn/DOT for this MOU, WisDNR will notify these communities of this program and invite them to submit proposals for funding. WisDNR will consult with the TEAM in determining funding decisions, amounts and expected products. Upon concurrence by WisDNR in such proposals, St. Croix County will arrange for the transfer of associated monies from the FUND to such i issuance, site inspections and communities. The program may allow for local permit s p enforcement through development of an Authorized Local Program pursuant to NR 216.415, Wis. Adm. Code. B. Local Government Planning/Zoning Support- $1.0 Million iv. Introduction. Monies provided to St. Croix County and UW-River Falls for activities in this section of the shall be used to assist St. Croix County and the Town of St. Joseph to expand their capacity and effectiveness in local planning, zoning and educational • programs to improve their abilities to manage growth. v. Fund Allocation: As described in earlier sections of this MOU, St. Croix County, the Town of St. Joseph and UW-River Falls will submit proposals for advance WisDNR review and concurrence, in consultation with the TEAM, before earmarked funds may be expended. These monies shall be allocated as follows: a. FUND amounts of $750,000 to St. Croix County and $200,000 to the Town of St. v 1 Joseph to hire or contract for project staff and consultant services to assist in revising and/or developing local comprehensive plans, neighborhood plans, ordinances and � other planning tools that will result in natural resource enhancement, pollution g4P 1 prevention, protection for historic properties, or other environmental protection. Ase. b. $50,000 will be provided to UW-River Falls to help establish and implement natural resources and historic properties protection efforts of the Western Wisconsin Intergovernmental Collaborative (WWIC). The grant will supplement, but not replace, local government member financial support for the WWIC. The purpose of this organization is to enhance the quality of life in Pierce, Polk and St. Croix Counties of Wisconsin by providing a long-term collaborative forum for its governmental jurisdictions, including villages, towns, cities and counties. WWIC will share information, experiences and best practices on key issues and problems; serve as an "Issues Clearinghouse"; engage in regional problem-solving; 5 develop a more visible regional identity; serve as a voice for the three-county region • to influence public policy; help to provide advice and sharing of technical expertise from resources available at UW-River Falls, UW-Extension and other sources; and explore opportunities for potential governmental cost-savings through shared resources. WWIC planned actions include organizing and sponsoring quarterly programs/workshops used to bring in experts, facilitate focused problem solving and to disseminate targeted and region-specific educational materials on water quality, natural resources, historic properties, and other issues. C. Greenspace Protection Program- $500,000 The Town of St. Joseph and St. Croix County, Wisconsin are currently preparing Comprehensive Plans. Both plans will include proposals to develop and implement activities aimed at protecting rural character, surface and groundwater water quality and preserving wildlife habitat base and diversity of lands. The targeted goals of such programs should include: identification and protection of sensitive natural resource areas and environmental corridors; protection of wetlands and other groundwater recharge areas; identification and remediation to sources of surface water pollution from non-point discharges; protection and expansion of public recreation use opportunities; and addressing ways to minimize land use conflicts between urban and rural areas. In order to assist the Town and the County to achieve these goals As described in earlier sections • of this MOU, the St. Croix County and the Town of St. Joseph will submit proposals for advance WisDNR review and concurrence, in consultation with the TEAM, before earmarked funds may be expended. These monies shall be allocated as follows: FUND amounts of$400,000 for St. Croix County and $100,000 for the Town of St. Joseph to develop and adopt plans, policies, educational outreach programs, and/or ordinances to protect open space consistent with the above goals, including but not limited to programs such as the purchase of fee title, the purchase/transfer of development rights or the purchase of conservation easements. Attachments: Preferred Alternative Layout Mitigation for Growth Management Impacts Graphic dated 12-15-05 6 • • Signatures signify agency concurrence with this Memorandum of Understanding Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Department of Transportation By: By: Scott Humrickhouse Khani Sahebjam Director Metro District Engineer West Central Region Date: Date: • Wisconsin Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration • By: By: Kevin Chesnik Thomas K. Sorel Administrator Division Administrator Division of Transportation System Development Date: Date: • 7 DRAFT 02/10/06 DRAFT St. Croix River Crossin g Project Memorandum of Understanding For the Implementation of Riverway Mitigation Items Between the National Park Service, The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, The Federal Highway Administration, The Minnesota Department of Transportation And the Wisconsin Department of Transportation 1. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) plan to construct a new crossing of the St. Croix River between Oal__sigialeights and Stillwater, Minnesota and the Town of St. Joseph, Wisconsin, as described in the 2006 Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (SFEIS) for the St. Croix River Crossing project; and •2. Chapter 15 of the SFEIS documents the adverse environmental impacts of the Preferred Alternative that cannot be avoided on the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway and the mitigation package; and 3. Table 15-2 of the SFEIS provides a summary overview of the Preferred Alternative mitigation package and includes: mitigation dollar amounts to be provided by the transportation agencies; the agency or agencies responsible for implementation of the mitigation item; the schedule for implementation; and the contract or agreement necessary for execution of the mitigation item; and 4. For Mitigation Items b., £, g., i., and k. of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU),the parties will negotiate and enter into specific agreements, in accordance with applicable laws, to outline the financial arrangements and administrative details to carry out the intentions expressed in this MOU. 5. For Mitigation Item b. only, for administrative efficiency, the source of all funds to be provided to the Wisconsin Department Natural Resources (WisDNR) and to St. Croix County, and distributed to the Town of St. Joseph will be from Mn/DOT Project appropriations. �L 6. An implementation graphic describing the Mitigation for Riverway Imps' s is attach- which also provides the additional implementation details for each of the items; and 7. The above agencies wish to enter into this MOU to further refine the implementation of each mitigation item; and 108. Mitigation Items: The following is further refinement of each of the Riverway Impacts mitigation items. 1 a. Removal of Xcel Barge Unloader Facility and Mooring Cells: 1110 I/ The barge unloading facility and mooring cells associated with the Xcel Energy King Plant will be removed from the St. Croix River, eliminating an existing man-made structure from the Riverway. The estimated cost of this mitigation item is $1.1 million. The facility is owned by Xcel Energy with the DOT's paying for this mitigation item to offset the visual impacts of a new river crossing by removing an existing man-made structure from the Riverway. The facility consists of 18 mooring cells and four additional foundation cells that support a large coal barge off-loading facility that is no longer used. A conveyor system between the structure and the shoreline will also be removed. Steel sheeting from each of the mooring cells will be removed by either pulling the sheeting or cutting it off near the river bottom. The stone fill in each cell will be spread out near the cell location and would be left in-place as aquatic habitat. One pivot cell from the barge off-loading facility will remain. Mn/DOT and WisDOT have also proposed to use the Xcel barge unloading facility and mooring cells as a barge docking facility during the Preferred Alternative river crossing construction. Temporary barge docking facilities will be placed in the river for use during construction of the Preferred Alternative. Reuse of the existing Xcel facility during river crossing construction will result in one fewer temporary barge docking facility that will need to be constructed. 410 A Memorandum of Understanding (See attachment.) has been developed between Mn/DOT and Xcel Energy regarding the use of these facilities during river crossing construction and • removal following construction of the river crossing. Prior to implementation, this mitigation item will also be evaluated for potential mussel impacts and osprey nesting areas. 1. Relocation and replacement of the Osprey nest requires a permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2. The mooring cells gravel contents will be spread on the river bottom at an elevation, which will allow potential barge access to the Pivot Cell from the downstream side. The gravel contents of the cells upstream from the Pivot Cell will remain at an elevation, which will allow recreational boat traffic to safely pass. The river bottom elevation at all of the cells will remain as is, so as to limit any disturbances to it. b. Mitigation for damages to blufflands: As part of the Project, funding in the amount of$2.0 million will be provided to WisDNR and funding in the amount of$2.5 million will be provided to St. Croix County for the protection of replacement lands to offset the impacts of a new crossing on the Wisconsin bluff. Protection could include the purchase of fee title, the purchase or transfer of development rights or the purchase of conservation easements from willing sellers of land located in St. Croix County, Wisconsin. Protected lands would be perpetually maintained for land and water conservation purposes and other compatible uses, including public recreation. • It is the intent of all parties to this agreement that $2 million will be used by WisDNR for its • own land protection efforts within the Riverway. 2 It is also the intent of all parties to this agreement that $2 million will be used by St. Croix • County for land protection efforts within the Riverway Basin and the remaining funds in the amount of $500,000 will be distributed by St. Croix County to the Town of St. Joseph for similar use. Prior to expending such funds for the protection of specific land parcels, St. Croix County and the Town of St. Joseph will consult with, and seek concurrence from, WisDNR on the targeted land parcel(s) and the proposed management of such land by St. Croix County or Town of St. Joseph. All parties to this MOU recognize that the source of these mitigation funds is Mn/DOT Project appropriations and, therefore, St. Croix County and the Town of St. Joseph are eligible to use their respective portions to compete for matching Wisconsin Stewardship Local Assistance Grants administered by WisDNR. If St. Croix County or the Town of St. Joseph decide to partner with a non-profit conservation organization (NCO) in purchasing land rights as described above, the partnering parties would be eligible to compete for other Stewardship match programs for which the local units of government themselves are not eligible. It is the recommendation of all parties to this MOU that St. Croix County and the Town of St. Joseph should make reasonable effort to obtain matching Wisconsin Stewardship funds. All such grant requests will be subject to WisDNR's standard, independent review process governing the Stewardship Program. As stipulated in the Section 106 Amended MOA(Stipulation VIII), for any property purchased or protected under this mitigation item, WisDNR, St. Croix County and the Town of St. Joseph shall consult with the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Officer (WisSHPO), the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer (MnSHPO) and other consulting parties, including Indian tribes, as appropriate, in accordance with 36 CFR §§ 800.3 - 800.5 to • determine if historic properties in addition to those identified in Stipulation II.C.4 of the Section 106 MOA will be affected. In addition, the WisDNR, St. Croix County and the Town • of St. Joseph will confer with the WisSHPO on possible sites to acquire in order to provide protection for historic properties. c. Bluffland Restoration: The intent of the bluffland restoration mitigation item is to further offset the impacts of the Preferred Alternative on the Wisconsin bluff. Mitigation items include: 1. Removal of the Buckhorn sign. The Buckhorn sign is located approximately 1,800 feet north of the Preferred Alternative river crossing location along the Wisconsin bluff. Under this mitigation item, the sign will be removed and the bluff will be allowed to return to a natural state. The attached Memorandum of Understanding developed between WisDOT and the property owner, Edward T. Johnston, includes provisions for its removal. 2. Partial restoration of the Wisconsin approach to the Lift Bridge. Under this mitigation item, the existing STH 64 roadway between the Lift Bridge and STH 35 will be removed and restored. A portion of STH 64 will be redeveloped as a Loop Trail as described in the Visual Quality Manual. The existing CTH E roadway between the CTH E/STH 64 intersection and State Street will also be removed. The road rights-of- way will be revegetated following removal of the pavements. • d. Removal of Terra Terminal Building: • The Terra Terminal building, an old fertilizer warehouse on the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility property, will be removed under this mitigation item, removing an existing man-made 3 • structure from the Riverway. This activity will also include removal of construction debris 1 (asphalt and concrete) used for bank stabilization near the building and the removal of below- water debris near the shoreline. A natural condition will be created along the shoreline with • removal of the existing construction debris (e.g., concrete slabs). Any replacement materials necessary to maintain riverbank stabilization will have a natural appearance. The removal of construction debris and the replacement with natural material to ensure bank stabilization will t be coordinat ith the City of Stillwater to ensure that this is consistent with the plan for the , Fe, {setting a ong the Riverway. Ip i Mn/DOT will coordinate removal of the Terra Terminal building with Stillwater. The Terra Terminal building site has been identified by Mn/DOT as a potential construction stain site. �, g Y p staging' ``Y Once the building structure is removed, the Terra Terminal building pad could also be used as �(! !� a staging area during construction. Identification of all construction staging sites will be L ' completed during final design. When construction is complete, the building pad will be removed and the site restored. Mn/DOT is currently working with the City of Stillwater to relocate the Bergstein Shoddy Mill buildings to the site of the Terra Terminal building. b n-A-q' oPIri Additional historic resource investigations have been conducted on the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility property since publication of the SDEIS. Refer to Chapter 11 and the Section 106 MOA in Appendix G of the SFEIS for additional detail. e. Kolliner Park: The Kolliner Park property, located on the Wisconsin shoreline of the St. Croix River adjacent • to the Lift Bridge and the existing STH 64 approach roadway, will be allowed to revert to a 1 0 ? natural state. Non-historic, man-made elements (e.g., access road; parking lot pavement; miscellaneous items) will be removed from the site. Although the pavement for the access ��� o road will be removed, the revegetated roadway will remain usable for emergency and city Q S S vehicle access. Some minor grading may be required following removal of these elements. � ` Some retaining walls may also remain intact to provide site drainage as requested by the WisDNR. Following removal of these elements, the park would be allowed to revert to a natural state. The Kolliner Park property is owned by the City of Stillwater. The property will remain under the ownership of the City of Stillwater with the implementation of this mitigation item. Although the park master plan cannot be implemented fully (i.e., the proposed access road and parking would not be feasible because there would be no vehicular access available to the general public to the site), the City could still develop, subject to applicable federal, state and local government regulations, other elements proposed in the park master plan. f Riverway Interpretation: Vct The Riverway interpretation mitigation item will include interpretation items (e.g., �' .,_,•).informational and mobile kiosks, bulletin boards) related to natural and cultural resources to il enhance the recreational experience for users of the Riverway. Examples of potential content \I` &� of the interpretation items are provided in Section 14.2.1.1 of the SDEIS, and include material 411p\ related to natural and historic resources. Interpretive items related to natural resources may III include items related to zebra mussels in the St. Croix River (e.g., education, research, or inspection programs), informational material on other invasive species, items related to water quality, or items related to the Riverway's resources and values. Interpretive items related to 4 • historic resources may include installation of interpretive materials in locations such as • downtown Stillwater, Kolliner Park or the Stillwater Boom Site related to archaeological sites and past uses. • The NPS, in coordination with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) and WisDNR, will be responsible for the content and implementation of this mitigation item. NPS will also consult with MnSHPO and WisSHPO to prevent adverse impacts to historic resources. As part of the Project, funding in the amount of will be provided to the NPS. ' g. Public Boat Access: As part of the Project, funding in the amount of$1.2 million will be provided to the MnDNR qfor costs associated with locating and constructing a public access facility on the St. Croix River in the general project vicinity. MnDNR will conduct location studies, environmental documentation, and any mitigation necessary for access construction impacts. The location of the access has not yet been determined. The history and issues surrounding the public boat access mitigation item are described in Section 14.2.1.1 of the SDEIS. h. Loop Trail System: i. As part of the compensation to offset impacts of a new river crossing on the recreational values of the Riverway, Mn/DOT and WisDOT will complete a loop trail system between Minnesota and Wisconsin. The trail will be open for use within one year after • the St. Croix River Crossing Project is open to traffic. T e location of the loop trail system is illustrated in Figure 15-2. -- Aas "4- QP f • ii. As part of the loop trail system, the Lift Bridge will be converted to a pedestrian/bicycle facility. Bollards, or similar gating elements, will be placed within the Chestnut Street right-of-way in Stillwater near the Lift Bridge to prevent vehicular access by the general public to the Lift Bridge; this will still allow for any traffic operations on Chestnut Street. These bollards would be removable and allow for maintenance, emergency, and city-owned vehicles to access the Lift Bridge and Kolliner Park in Wisconsin. Lift Bridge management and operations as part of the loop trail system are described in more detail in the Section 106 Amended MOA in Appendix G of this SFEIS and in Section 15.4.1.4 of this SFEIS. With conversion of the Lift Bridge to a pedestrian/bicycle facility, the existing operation regulations and lift schedule will stay in effect. iii. Within one year after opening of the new river crossing, a second rehabilitation project on the Lift Bridge will be initiated, with the work elements described by the priorities established in the Lift Bridge Management Plan. iv. The final design of the loop trail will be included in the Visual Quality Manual development. Preliminary design for the loop trail anticipates two separate trails, one for pedestrians and one for bicyclists, through the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility (V1/ property and up the Wisconsin bluff from the Lift Bridge to STH 35 within the existing STH 64 right-of-way. Through the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility property, a higher speed bicycle trail will be located on an existing railroad grade along the west boundary U of the site. A lower speed pedestrian trail will follow the St. Croix River shoreline at the q .\14\ . east boundary of the property. This plan for the loop trail through the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility property is consistent with the park plan for this site. Refer to 5 Figure 15-3 for an illustration of the loop trail through the Stillwater Municipal Barge S Facility property. v. Up the Wisconsin bluff, the bicycle trail will be constructed at the existing road grade; the pedestrian trail will also be constructed at the existing road grade with intermittent landings. The loop trail will be constructed within the existing STH 64 right-of-way from the Lift Bridge to existing STH 35. Refer to SFEIS, Figure 15-4 for an illustration. A cross section of the potential loop trail design and revegetation up the Wisconsin bluff is illustrated in Figure 15-5. A photo simulation of the loop trail and revegetation is illustrated in Figure 15-6. Vegetation between the two trails up the Wisconsin bluff will be addressed with the Visual Quality Manual development. A parking facility (approximately 40 stalls) will be constructed at the top of the bluff in Houlton, with access to the loop trail system. Bollards will be constructed at the top of the bluff in Wisconsin across the loop trail to prevent vehicles from accessing the loop trail at the top of the Wisconsin bluff. vi. The loop trail will utilize paved shoulders along existing STH 35 and a shared-roadway facility on existing CTH E through Houlton, past the Houlton Elementary School, to the proposed STH 64 — STH 35/CTH E interchange. A cul-de-sac will be constructed on existing CTH E at the interchange, and a parking facility will be constructed to the south of the cul-de-sac. This parking facility will provide access to the loop trail system from the STH 64 — STH 35/CTH E interchange. The loop trail will continue south from the cul-de-sac at existing CTH E, include an underpass under the new STH 35 roadway, and continue south to the new river crossing parallel to the west side of the new STH 64 roadway. • vii. As part of the completion of the loop trail, Mn/DOT and WisDOT will also partner with • the City of Stillwater in grading the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility property following construction. The grading will be completed by Mn/DOT and WisDOT under a construction contract as part of the river crossing construction. The City of Stillwater will be consulted as part of this process to ensure that the grading is completed consistent with their plans for the future park development. The grading will be completed to the extent possible while still avoiding the natural and cultural resources (i.e., Hersey and Bean site) of the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility property. viii. Ownership, operation and maintenance of the loop trail will be determined through discussions with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies during final design. Mn/DOT and WisDOT anticipate transferring ownership, operation, and maintenance responsibilities for the loop trail to the respective local units of government. An operations plan, to be completed prior to opening of the loWil to public use, will define uses for the loop trail system. Expected limitations on use include restricting the ae f loop trail to non-motorized uses only and restricted trail use during winter months. Refer Vim"` to Section 16.2.2.3 of this SFEIS for a discussion of additional involvement with the City of Stillwater regarding completion of the loop trail and other temporary impacts to Stillwater-owned property. ix. The conceptual design of the loop trail is included in the Visual Quality Manual and describes the location of the trails and aesthetic treatments. • i. Recreation, Education and Riverway Restoration: • 6 • i. A new St. Croix River crossing will result in adverse impacts to the visual qualities of the Riverway and will also result in an adverse impact to a user's recreational experience along the Riverway. The following is a description of these three components of this mitigation • item: a. Archaeological Surveys: A new river crossing will impact the visual qualities for which the Riverway was set aside and will impact people's recreational experience on the Riverway. To compensate for this, the riverway agencies (NPS, MnDNR, WisDNR) have proposed to restore native vegetation and develop campsites along the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway (Lower Riverway) in order to enhance the camping experience while protecting the Riverway's resources. Prior to any management activities to remove exotic species and restore natural species (e.g., burning or other treatment plans) or prior to any campsite expansion, archaeological surveys of the affected areas will be completed, in consultation with the Minnesota and Wisconsin SHPO's, and any objects found will be documented and curated. b. Historic Research: A new river crossing will impact and change the appearance of the river and shoreline. To raise awareness among river users and researchers of how man has changed the river in the past, the NPS, in consultation with the Minnesota and Wisconsin SHPO's, will document the river changes implemented by the Army Corps of Engineers activities (i.e., decisions; proposed and implemented plans; photographs and drawings). The NPS will also document, including photographs, the history of the Boomsite and its effect on the Riverway and the logging industry. The results of these efforts will be a scholarly document and an overview of the research on the NPS website. c. Restroom Facilities: Increasing recreational use of the St. Croix River has elevated • demand for restroom facilities along the river. To respond to this demand, and to Otg.ti J minimize pollution associated with the lack of proper sanitation, NPS will construct t.. new restroom facilities along the Riverway to enhance the recreational experience o while protecting the Riverway's resources. btu ref yhtitii. As part of the Project, funding in the amount of $250,000 for these three components of Y this mitigation item will be provided to the NPS. The NPS will be responsible for the purchase and maintenance of the restroom facility. j. Covenants on Excess Property: i. This mitigation item will require the placement of covenants on potential excess properties �0� A from the 1995 Final EIS Preferred Alternative alignment in Wisconsin and the former STH 35 wayside rest area to limit future development uses. There will be no excess property • available on the Minnesota side of the Riverway in lower Oak Park Heights; all of the previously purchased right-of-way for the 1995 FEIS Preferred Alternative alignment will ■ s be used by the Preferred Alternative. 41h The excess property in Wisconsin could eventually be sold as surplus property. If sold as surplus property, deed-restrictive covenants will be placed on the properties that would be consistent with Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway Cooperative Management Plan (CMP) guidelines (e.g., bluff setback; structure height — see Appendix A of the CMP). • WisDOT anticipates a loss of approximately $466,000 on the sale of these properties with • 7 • the restrictive covenants in place.' The anticipated covenants on the excess WisDOT- • owned properties are described in Chapter 13 of this SFEIS. • ii. Lands west of Existing STH 35, both at the former wayside south of the project and along the 1995 Final EIS Preferred Alternative alignment, if sold by WisDOT as excess right-of- way, would be restricted to "Conservancy District" use as defined by St. Croix County Zoning as follows: Conservancy District is established to preserve and perpetuate in an open state certain areas such as lowland swamps, marshes and wetlands, floodplains and stream beds, slopes, bluffs, wooded areas and other areas of aesthetic value which, because of their unique physical features, are deemed desirable to be retained for the benefit of this and future generations. The regulations of the Conservancy District are intended not only to preserve and perpetuate open space land and water areas consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter, but also to protect the community and the County from costs and consequences which may be incurred when unsuitable development occurs in such areas. Lands east of Existing STH 35 along the 1995 Preferred Alternative alignment from Existing STH 35 to the east-west 1/4 line of Section 26, Town 30 North, Range 20 West, if sold by WisDOT as excess right of way, would be restricted to "Agriculture Residential District" use as defined by St. Croix County Zoning as follows: Agricultural Residential District: This district is created to establish areas within which agricultural uses, commercial uses serving agriculture, limited commercial, institutional residential uses may be located. The Agricultural Residential District is intended to include areas in which exclusive agricultural use on an area-wide basis is not warranted due to such factors as the existence of mixed uses prior to the date the district was established and located, • demonstrated or expected ability of farm and selected nonfarm uses to exist in close • proximity without undue conflict or a determination that the area is in a state of transition to urban residential character. The restriction on this parcel could be removed if equal or greater acreage with equivalent restrictions is provided in the project area. iii. Lands north of the east-west 'A line of Section 26, Town 30 North, Range 20 West would have no restrictions in use on the deed in the sale as excess right-of-way. k. Spill Response Plan. As population grows and traffic levels increase in St. Croix County, Wisconsin, Washington County, Minnesota and in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, an increased risk for traffic related spills within the St. Croix River basin may occur. A comprehensive spill response plan will help improve the ability for federal, state, regional and local governments to respond to such spills, and minimize the potential adverse impacts to surface waters, groundwater and aquatic and terrestrial wildlife populations and habitats. As part of the Project, funding in the amount of$100,000 will be provided to the NPS to work with contractors or consultants to develop a River Defense Network for spill response. This effort will include mapping spill entry routes and determining time of travel for various flow regimes and spill locations. It will also include arrangements for spill contractors and equipment storage at various locations along the river for rapid deployment. 7. Monitoring and Reporting 1 Estimate for the difference in Wis/DOT selling excess property with and without a restrictive covenant is$10,000 per acre. 8 L a. On March 1st of every year, FHWA shall submit a summary annual report to the signatories 410 detailing the measures carried out pursuant to its terms. FHWA shall submit an annual report every year until the mitigation item work contained within this MOU is completed. 40 b. The annual report will describe all actions taken by FHWA, Mn/DOT and WisDOT during the preceding year to implement the terms of this MOU, identify any problems or unexpected issues encountered during the year, any disputes and objections submitted or resolved, and any changes recommended in implementation of the MOU, and any scheduling changes. The annual report shall also include a timetable of mitigation item activities proposed for implementation within the following year or two. c. The signatories shall review the annual report and provide their comments to FHWA within thirty (30) days of receipt of the report. d. At its own discretion or at the request of any signatory to this MOU, FHWA shall convene a meeting to facilitate review and comment on the annual report, and to resolve any questions about its content and/or to resolve adverse comments. 8. Oversight Committee. An Oversight Committee, composed of representatives from the National Park Service, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, �� U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and Federal Highway Administration, will receive Annual Reports as described above and at the group's discretion, meet on an as-needed basis (minimum of annual meetings are expected). 9. This MOU merely depicts a proposed plan of action for the mutual convenience of the parties. This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is not a binding reeme and that any binding obligations of the parties to this MOU will be made pursuant to written, and properly executed and • approved agreement(s). • Attachments: Preferred Alternative Layout Mitigation for Riverway Impacts Graphic dated 10-17-05 MOU between Mn/DOT and Xcel for the Barge Unloader Facility MOU between WisDOT and Edward T.Johnston for removal of Buckhorn sign • S 9 • Signatures signify agency concurrence with this Memorandum of Understanding 110 National Park Service Minnesota Department of Transportation By: By: Tom Bradley Khani Sahebjam Superintendent St. Croix National Scenic Riverway Metro District Engineer Date: Date: Wisconsin Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration • By: By: • Kevin Chesnik Thomas K. Sorel Administrator Division Administrator Division of Transportation System Development Date: Date: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources By: Scott Humrickhouse Director West Central Region Date: 10 ,„, 4, Cit y g of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007.Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 February 16th,2006 Adam Josephson,P.E. Minnesota DOT-Waters Edge Bldg. 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 ***Also via email*** Dear Mr.Josephson, The City is in receipt of three MOU documents that discuss project mitigations which you have asked for the City's input and comment. One concern the City maintains is that these documents indicate that the bridge crossing is to be located in Stillwater or references"Oak Park Heights and Stillwater". Please advise if the proposed alignment has moved further north,placing the bridge crossing in Stillwater,rather than in Oak Park Heights. • If the proposed alignment has not been altered,please revise the documents to indicate that the bridge crossing lies between Oak Park Heights,Minnesota,and the Town St.Joseph,Wisconsin. We are still reviewing the MOUs and compiling additional comments that we hope to send out by the end of the week. Thank you, y 1 Eric Johnson City Administrator Cc: Weekly Notes Todd Clarkowski—via email Terry Pederson,WisDOT—via email • 4111 i ¢ * ^^mac 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 January 25,2006 Adam Josephson,P.E. Minnesota DOT- Waters Edge Bldg. 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE: DRAFT Visual Quality Manual(VQM) Dear Mr.Josephson, The City does appreciate being provided a copy of the DRAFT Visual Quality Manual for early comment. Per the timelines set forth your recent email,the City anticipates providing your office our initial comments on this DRAFT prior to the end of February.However,to effectively continue our analysis,the City is in need of additional information and is as follows: • 1) Please provide an overhead view of the currently proposed bridge corridor from Phil's Tara Hideaway in Oak Park Heights to the Wisconsin side terminating 1,000' from the eastern bluff line.The City is in need of this map in large scale(min.48"X 48")and in.PDF format. 2) Please provide a copy of the engineering drawings,concept designs and/or specifications of the anticipated piers and structures to be placed in the St.Croix River.Please indicate if there are to be two or more piers. 3) Please provide Ten(10)color copies of the entire current DRAFT VQM.Please include the remaining drawings not included in the DRAFT VQM as initially provided. Upon the receipt of this information the City can better continue its review and provide our best comments on this document.Please also anticipate that the City may have additional comments on future versions of the VQM as our current review is only of a DRAFT document. We greatly appreciate you assistan e in attaining this information and thank you in advance.Please let me know if you have any • .-stions. egards, nc Johnso I City Adm. +ator Gam' Cc: City Council Membe Mark Vierling,City Attorney Dennis Postler,BRAA Dave Hall,MNDOT 411 Todd Clarkowski,MNDOT Cheryl Martin,FHA Terry Pederson,WisDOT Jay Wetmore,Edwards and Kelcey 0t 0 + • µ'Vi!$. 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 December 14th,2005 Ms. Cheryl Martin Federal Highway Administration Minnesota Field Office Galtier Plaza 380 Jackson Street, Suite 500 St Paul,MN 55101-2904 RE: St Croix River Crossing/STH 36 Project—Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Dear Ms. Martin, Id/ The City of Oak Park Heights does thank you for the opportunity to be a"concurring party"on the Section 106 MOA . The City Council has had an opportunity to review the document and must decline to be a"concurring party"at this time. However, as the Project and further discussions progress,the City may reconsider this position. Please let me know if you have any questions. est Re lards Eric Jo is so, City s I . strator _ 0 Cc: City Council Members✓ Mark Vierling, City Attorney Adam Joesephson,MNDOT Rick Arnebeck,MNDOT Todd Clarkowski,MNDOT Dennis Postler,BRAA • • • • -ECKBERG LAMMERS 1. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1809 Northwestern Avenue, Suite 110 41) Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Writer's direct dial number: (651)439-2878 (651) 351-2118 Fax(651)439-2923 www.eckberglammers.com November 8, 2005 James Lammers Robert Briggs Mark Vierling Thomas Weidner Susan Olson Mr. Rick Arnebeck David Snyder Metropolitan Division FT-31\\/7 Sean Stokes Minnesota Department of Transportation Laura Domagala Waters Edge Building Joshua Christensen 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Re: H.R.3 —Federal Funding—STH 36 Reconstruction St. Croix River Crossing Dear Mr. Arnebeck: In review of your September 27 correspondence relative to the Highway 36/St. . Croix River crossing project and funding issues raised therein, the City has several issues and comments that we wish to pass back to you at this time. We are, of course, appreciative of your effort to try to clarify the process under which these grants will be administered. You note there is no formal grant application process. However, you indicate that the steps and actions must be performed by MnDOT prior to the time that the funds are released and I presume, for purposes of your analysis, those are based on practice as opposed to rule or regulation. If there is a specific rule or regulation that defines the parameters of the process within MnDOT,we would appreciate receiving a citation to that so that we could familiarize ourselves with that process. You note that you will have an opportunity to have a discussion with FHWA to determine types of construction work eligibility for the HPP funds and that the City will be invited to participate in those discussions. Your commentary is that after those discussions have been completed, you will then be able to determine remaining or available funding for frontage road reconstruction, storm water treatment or additional right-of-way. The presumption that flows from that discussion within your letter is, of course,that HPP funding could be exhausted before those elements of the project could be addressed. I presume,therefore,that MnDOT has potential alternate sources of funding for those particular aspects of the project since it seems to us that they are essential to project completion and that MnDOT should not engage in a piecemeal construction project, leaving critical elements out. Please identify what alternate sources of funding that the Department is reviewing that may be available for those elements of the project. ECKBERG, LAMMERS. BRIGGS, WOLFF & VIERLING, PLLP Family Law/ Divorce ^ Buoness and Commerwal Law = Critnmal Law « persona! injury!Wrongtrn Death Estate Banning/Probate 6 Real Lstste Land thse !_<w ' Mediation F Nilktmcpa Law = Civd Litlgatmn % Mr. Rick Arnebeck November 8, 2005 Page 2 We appreciate your acknowledgment of the intent of the author of the bill to have the funds be made fully available to defray local costs with utility right-of-way and other local improvement relocation. We are,however, confused by your statement that municipal consent, as you have provided for it in your letter, must be granted before you will be able to finalize action steps and submit a STIP amendment. We are curious as to why it is that municipal consent nee ds t o be finalized be f ore you submit a STIP ame ndment and what rule or procedural requirement you are referring to for that principal or requirement. The City is keenly interested in maintaining up to date informational status with regard to the funding aspects of this project,particularly as it affects the availability of funds from any source to be applied to defray or eliminate local expenses with regard to utility relocation, frontage road, storm water drainage and related local issues that might otherwise impact the community, either financially or practically as a part of this project. We would ask that you keep us informed, with the opportunity to attend any critical meetings that are necessary to those issues. Finally,please advise as to where the current draft of the MOU with the City is in process. Yours very truly, • Mark J. Vierling MJV/sdb cc: Eric Johnson, City Administrator S , oit Eso1. Minnesota Department of Transportation �(11.oF A"yd' Metropolitan Division TR Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 • September 27, 2005 Mr. Eric Johnson City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Boulevard North PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082-2007 Dear Mr. Johnson: RE: H.R.3 —Federal Funding—STH 36 Reconstruction/ St. Croix River Crossing—State Grant Application Lt. Governor Molnau has asked me to reply on her behalf regarding your letter of September 15, 2005. • The Lt. Governor also suggests that project related questions are likely to be handled in a more expedient timeframe, if they are addressed directly to the district office rather than directing them through her office. Let me take just a moment to clarify that the funding designated for the St. Croix River Crossing in the recently passed Federal Transportation Act titled SAFETEA-LU are designated funds referred to as "High Priority Projects" (HPP) funding. There is no formal"grant application"process as you refer to in your letter for these funds; however, there are a series of steps and actions that must be performed by Minnesota Department of Transportation prior to the time that these funds are released to Minnesota Department of Transportation by the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA). The first action we must take is to develop an accurate cost estimate for the work to be done and request an amendment to our State Transportation Improvement Plan(STIP). At the present time, we are working closely with your city engineer to develop a cost estimate for the local utility work. Next,we will need to have a discussion with FHWA to determine what other types of construction work is eligible for the HPP designated funds. • An equal opportunity employer • 4 t } Eric Johnson September 27, 2005 Page Two • The city will be invited to participate in these discussions, as will the county and the city of Stillwater. Based on these discussions,we will work closely with you and your city engineer to determine a cost estimate for the local work that will be eligible for these designated funds. When these tasks have been completed, we will then be able to determine whether there would be any available funding left for frontage road reconstruction, storm water treatment or additional right-of-way. In our discussions with Representative Kennedy's office, it is his intention that the funds be used to the fullest extent, allowable for local costs directly associated with utility,right of way and other improvements related to TH 36, frontage roads and local connection reconstruction required as a part of the St. Croix River Crossing Project. It is understood by all parties that the potential utility relocation costs are well beyond the ability of the city to bear relating to this project. We will not be able to finalize these first actions steps and submit a STIP Amendment until a Record of Decision has been approved by the FHWA(expected to occur in January 2006), municipal consent has been granted by the local cities, (Oak Park Heights and Stillwater) and it has been determined that there is sufficient funding for any initial phases of the work that could be accomplished within the limits of SAFETEA-LU. The ongoing discussions we are having with the city regarding municipal consent will also • help to identify the financial obligations for local improvements related to the project. There are a number of complexities related to the new SAFETEA-LU Bill that have a significant impact on how we will be able to use the HPP funds and what procedures must be followed. We have a number of our staff attending a SAFETEA-LU workshop on October 6 that may help provide more answers to some of these process questions. I understand that Councilmember McComber will be attending this workshop also. We will continue to work closely with the city and city staff on this project. I would like to suggest we set up a meeting after the October 6 workshop to review the information presented and determine an appropriate sequence of events and involvement that should follow. I will continue to strive for positive, open communications with the city as we move through this process together and it is my hope that the city will do the same. Sincere , Ri Arnebeck _ • • • Cc: Lt. Governor Molnau Doug Differt Bob McFarlin Bob Winter Patrick C. Hughes Khani Sahebjam Rick Arnebeck Todd Clarkowski Adam Josephson • i CITY OF Y OAK PARK HEIGHTS 14168 Oak Park Boulevard No • P.O.Box 2007 • Oak Park Heights,MN 55082-2007 • Phone:651/439-4439 • Fax:651/439-0574 September 15,2005 Lieutenant Governor Molnau/Secretary of Transportation Transportation Building 395 John Ireland Boulevard Saint Paul,MN 55155 RE:H.R.3—Federal Funding—STH 36 Reconstruction/St.Croix River Crossing-State Grant Application. Dear Ms.Molnau, With the passage of the Federal Transportation Act,it is our understanding that the State of Minnesota will preparing a"grant request"to the United States Secretary of Transportation in order to secure the allocated funding and on approved timelines.As intended in the legislation,the City is to receive appropriate funding for City utility relocations as necessary with the implementation of the STH 36/St Croix River Crossing Project. Accordingly,the City of Oak Park Heights desires to be part of and have input into this grant application process.How these funds are to be allocated is of great importance and is an item the City wishes to clarify as soon as possible.Please advise us as to what next steps MnDOT is taking in this process and how the City is to be involved. The City requests that a response to this letter be provided that identifies what the City's role shall be in making the grant request to the Secretary. Should the City not receive an effective response to this request by October 7th,2005 the City must consider taking a non-supportive position in"Stakeholders"/consensus process. Pleas- -'me :,.w if you have any questions. erely/ ric Jo CA City A•"r istrator L Cc: City Council Members v/ Congressman Mark Kennedy, Minnesota 6th District 1415 Longworth HOB Washington,DC 20515 Norman Y.Mineta,Secretary— U.S.Department of Transportation 400 7th Street,S.W. Washington,D.C.20590 Mr.Rick Arnebeck,MnDOT • Tree City U.S.A. r't • rJ; 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 4`t,2005 To: Mr. Todd Clarkowski MNDOT- Metro Division Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 AND via facsimile—651-582-1308 Beth Bartz SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 1 Carlson Parkway North Minneapolis,MN 55447 AND via facsimile—763-475-0010 Mr.Rick Arnebeck • MNDOT- Metro Division Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 AND via facsimile—651-582-1308 Ms. Cheryl Martin United States Federal Highway Administration VIA EMAIL—Cheryl.Martin @fhwa.dot.gov From: Eric Johnson, City Administrator Enclosed you will find comments from the City of Oak Park Heights on the Cooperating Agency Draft—Supplement Environmental Final Impact Statement.Please note that the City providing the comments herein, does not waive or delete its authority to provide additional commentary or make further statements on the final EIS document. The City does anticipate having full authority to review and comment on the final document when released as permitted by law. Comments 1 to 18 are as follows: • • 1. The City of Oak Park Heights did not approve a particular "Preferred Alternative",for either the bridge or for a STH 36 layout please exactly state who selected the currently utilized Preferred Alternative and clearly identify what date the Stakeholder's group did approve this Preferred Alternative. Was this selection done by a voice vote,ballot, etc? This discussion should be inserted into Section 1.2.4.7.and Section 3.3.8. 2. Related to the above(1.),there should also be a discussion on why the Stakeholder's group did not select the least costly bridge alternative. 3. The Preferred Alternative has significant impact on the City of Oak Park Heights,please indicate where in the FEIS document where there has been an agreement with the City of Oak Park Heights to alter the location of Beach Road or place a cul-de-sac at the north end of Lookout Trail. While these discussions may be part of a final MOU,to date the concept of such actions have not been discussed nor the impacts studied.If MnDOT has performed these impact studies please insert as an appendix. 4. Page 9-7 contains a discussion of a Public Boat Access; the City of Oak Park Heights has not approved the location of such a facility with its jurisdiction.A separate and satisfactory agreement will be required to locate this facility in Oak Park Heights,either as part of this Project or as a future element separate from the Project.The City hereby asserts its jurisdiction and shall preclude the placement of such facility by any agency, MnDOT,MnDNR etc,without the written approval of the City of Oak Park Heights. • 5. Section 12 contains a discussion of construction staging and it appears that the will be a temporary shut down of the access between lower Oak Park Heights and the area both north of STH 36 and west of Osgood.Please identify how the fire protection services will be able to move from Bayport to the City of Oak Park Heights. Bayport Fire Department provides services to Oak Park Heights.How will response times be impacted,what will be the routes?At what Stage of the project will Beach Road be closed,please clearly indicate this scenario. Additionally,Beach Road may be relocated which may cause significant traffic disruptions at other intersections.Please describe these projected impacts and how will these be addressed? 6. On Page 15-19,4th paragraph,there is a discussion on the proposed Loop Trail.At no point has MnDOT approached the City of Oak Park Heights to discuss this system in an official capacity. This discussion must occur and should be address in the final EIS.As part of this discussion,the City and MnDOT would be required to execute a specific agreement on management and maintenance of the proposed trail systems. Additionally,the Loop Trail appears to have missing links, please provide a clear and distinct map laying out the entire system from the Projects' eastern limits in Wisconsin to it western limits in Minnesota in a single cut-sheet. 7. On Page 17-174 RESPONSES,Item B,there is a statement that the"...City Council in • May 2003 approved the PAC Recommendations from the STH 36 Partnership Study", please identify the exact date the City Council of Oak Park Heights approved this • document or approved a particular concept alternative and attached these resolutions as appendices to the FEIS. 8. On Page 17-73 RESPONSES,Item B, second and last paragraph,there is a discussion that there was a meeting between the City and the author of the economic study.While there was a short meeting where questions were raised,there was no solution generated nor offered to the City that was acceptable.Accordingly,to date the City of Oak Park Heights maintains its previously stated objections to that study.Please recall that the author of the study made no attempt to contact the City to advise that the study was proceeding or if it agreed with its methodology.Language should be inserted into the FEIS document that the City of Oak Park Heights has rejected this study in total. 9. On Page 15-8, Commitment of Financial Resources,the discussion states that the previous land takings in 1995 were not included in the current project cost estimate. Please indicate why not. There should be additional analyses provided in the economic impact section of the FEIS that addresses prior land takings,their costs and impacts on the City tax base to date. 10. What have been the fiscal impacts to date of this Project on the local units of government?A specific study should be included that provide some insight into these impacts.This should be inserted into Section 5. 11. Page 15-10,Financial Resources—states that there would in fact be an increase in the overall tax base due to the improved accessibility to developable land.Please indicate and • demonstrate what lands and whose tax base will be improved.In same section, loss of tax base currently endured by the City is not,according to the FEIS, considered a DIRECT IMPACT;please state why it is not. 12. The FEIS should endeavor to be more consistent in its identification of what jurisdictions the STH 36 project or Bridge impacts.Please clearly and consistently utilize the same nomenclature.For example,in some areas the document refers to improvements from STH 5 in Stillwater while in other places it refers to STH 5 in Oak Park Heights. 13. On Page 7-5 the St Croix Overlook Viewshed,7.3.1.5 is discussed.There should be language inserted into this section that states that this overlook shall be reconstructed to the extent as agreed upon by the City and MnDOT in the MOU. 14. On Page 12-6,Construction Related Impacts to Wetlands,the City of Oak Park Heights also maintains a Wetland Ordinance.Language should be inserted into this paragraph that states that the Project shall secure specific City approval for impacts to any wetlands and that these would be in addition to these from MnDNR or the Army Corps. 15. On Page 12-8,Relocation of Utilities 12.3.3,there is a discussion that the design and costs of utility relocations will be discussed in a Memorandum of Understanding. The City of Oak Park Heights and MnDOT to date have not yet agreed on the terms of a fmal MOU.This fact should be distinctly referenced in this paragraph. 16. On Page 18 and 19,Appendix G, (Appendices),Please clarify how the FHWA will notify parties that may not ultimately sign-on as a Concurring Party of filed disputes to the • Amended MOA. • 17. On Page 7,Appendix F,(Appendices),Item 1 of E.Proposed Mitigation Package;Please include the City of Oak Park Heights. 18. The final SEIS Highway 36 Plan should indicate the freeway design in the scoping document through Cities of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater. The State of Minnesota has indicated that a new study should be undertaken to determine the type of highway to be constructed through the Cities of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater. This study is funded and is likely to begin soon. The Cities of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater could then choose the final design before the local communities consider or grant municipal consent for the entire Project.If the communities agree to do highway upgrades that are more significant than the 1995 approved layout,then the SEIS work would be required prior to constructing and funding the roadway though Oak Park Heights and Stillwater. Accordingly,the report should indicate whether or not MNDOT will approve a Highway 36 study without a commitment from the local communities that what ever the outcome of the report,the local communities must approve. The SEIS indicates that the Highway 36 layout in the 2005 report is the approved 1995 plan. This roadway layout is not similar to 1995 layout;this report should indicate that this highway layout is different and these changes have has not been discussed with or approved by the Cities of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater;and was not given any form of municipal consent in 1995,as the 1995 plan was never brought back to the local communities for final layout approval. • • (Y:7 , •;T,., i:. t 4 J Jz rG r iUiI r^ c ✓.1.siii y ' �$� z.:fit; a,� aIR c i :, : 1 wr ' "k4...-. .—. Y. '*:',F5--. 91` City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Phone(651)439-4439 . Facsimile(651)439-0574 facsimile transmi ttal JQrt e /tit, 7_ 2 [ 3c� To: Fax: S J From: a IC< T e_AY/L)Scrl Date: - O p> Re: Pages: • S R • CC: El JkFor Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply 0 Please Recycle Notes: S S`i' • Z i fah '�"-W—, rit-P.i" Tfi :I Lt.(. �4 •�� 1 x. ��+y'3.i-,s . y 7y xa. �d urG n .,r Z )i r s a, L�� �j�n7 'uy 1 `•(S i f li it S.#:Al v•*ilia "� L•} r . '1ti 1�.3 S 01". '4 V, ! I t tk i in rtt ' dd a fil A.,,,�Y`-•r n'r > t ,, C 3 i�t fit i `- �� ,mss Y Y& .,t"'Y,"4,4, F'4.' 5,u -44 C� y-0234 -.'tY � iwlr ti.4^., +'t�i' ,+.��a5 +`? -` 6 .,fir'�,. 1'+ •. , { x b a`�:Y,a r'�^�7' ;i�: r� a,: .c)+ .3t..,,„„ ..rL'�,p.... .X'w.�:xxi'1..ss.,1..11,„..1: ,41 • • 4,a • t• it k -..:•;„,,,-, , �xi• • { Sv *. i "} iw ' '� r � r i. d. * r ` y t� � t a'.r" � -n vv s "� A -,3,,,l- �,�, City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Phone(651)439-4439 . Facsimile(651)439-0574 facsimile transmittal ' 7b 5 - y75- - 00 i ° To: 6e, ,/9-a fa- Fax: ,6� �:��'d From: .'ri.A L ,j 0 hms e7 Date: `$—5--0 S Re: Pages: 5 • CC: ❑ Urgent 0 For Review 0 Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑Please Recycle Notes: • y y • r4 Vi� `a4Wt 7,7�'u ,%., m �w.¢J -�"'r7��sie l� 4-rd"L S- r 4 Yr->t,,y`"�fy 0 a3' �s r 4r-4.vx7#Tyr.*,, k 4'gY� C '+•':-Yy k "' - t r S.nhw . Sf 1 - i�17.-I ".s ..�'irar 3y'a3te"L2°`.y� �v+'� �'.v'1 I 7 ,104 ��f i t w A t 4:: 0 t ,�k tS"'p Yy •r �l F ` ..i. �a' �' tlu fm L.',, 'd[ 1' J*t` 4 awn"T'B:.x ' ki g g 4 4-W,.6. ��1,�.i'm$i,'_'tzeg l�,k i p ^'.1._,+.°\.:kkg 4vait iJ,:-y✓_r TI • 4 tP • • �t 1`. 43i 4.k:' '. • 4t n Vi--;._• • • .t• � r & uw r tiuim T + F •`� `1 c-e �..,. „fit 4, r� .:ju..n.7-,. Oar s -- .;ec c- City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. • Box 2007 • Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Phone(651)4394439 . Facsimile(651)439-0574 facsimile transmittal �d GLor o w ' To: " " Fax: From: Date: Re: Pages: 5 KiA....e6 • CC: 1D Urgent For Review 0 Please Comment ❑ Please R e ply 0 Please R ecy cle Notes: • • • `.srC.>'N`..'- ,,.---%! Y S 's :L•^ _ i'T _ .77.= ,-. .eaY^S: ',yn,.. st,,m...,w. x'y• F v ` 'r' trj{1) t rs.' j $ "'i`'' p !i Y� tC pi s�"l 1-.1 y `i^ - .4''tf 1 1' e., tt .."i k*'� 1 'Ill k r...,/.5. t 1 J ! ,}44�j, t g 1.11-'0.4- ii!.ry� FF++ 4 ,',�(+ ,„ City of Oak Park Hei g hts 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 July 6,2005 Rick Arnebeck,Regional Manager Minnesota Department of Transportation—East Metro District t Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 Mr.Todd Clarkowski Minnesota Department of Transportation—East Metro District Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE: Continuing MOU Discussions • Gentlemen, The City has had an opportunity to review the latest MOU language as received from Mr.Clarkowski dated 6-7-05.Additional changes and revisions would need to be made to this document to bring the document in-line with the elements and understanding of our last conversation. However,the City at this point believes that it is best to postpone any further discussions on an MOU with MnDOT until such time as the dollars for the entire and complete project are actually allocated by Congress and the President.We anticipate that the final legislation will be fraught with complexities relative to the funding process and possible project allocations which would inevitably lead to us revisiting,if not rewriting,the MOU. We certainly hope, . •• do as well,that the Federal Government will quickly make its final determinations o• •I a g this pr•'ect.When these decisions are made we should reconvene. Sincerer Eric Jo•, o. City a'strator Cc: City Council Mark Vierling,City Attorney • • r -v 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 June 29th,2005 Bergstein Shoddy Mill Move Attn:Jackie Sluss MnDOT Cultural Resources Unit—MS 620 395 John Ireland Blvd St.Paul,MN 55155-1899 RE:Shoddy Mill Buildings Dear Ms. Sluss, In regard to the Shoddy Mill facilities,the City Council would like to pursue the placement of these buildings at Cover Park,perhaps 1/4 mile to the southwest,for use as park picnic shelters.Naturally,the City does anticipate the need for a final agreement between the City and MnDOT(or other parties)as to the • required short and long-term commitments as may required by all agencies.Please forward a copy of the agreement as soon as possible to our attention for review. We thank you for an opportunity to preserve these facilities. Thank You, Eric Johnson, City Administrator Cc: Weekly Notes • 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 June 27,2005 Ms.Cheryl Martin United States Federal Highway Administration VIA—EMAIL—Cheryl.Martin @fhwa.dot.gov Dear Ms.Martin, Enclosed you will fmd our commentary on the proposed Amended 106 MOU.We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the various provisions through noon today.The following are items that should be addressed in the document.Please note that the City Council has not taken action on this document nor have they committed to be a concurring party at this time.At some future point,the Council may discuss the"final"version,request additional revisions and may vote to support this 106 MOU. Please note,to date the City of Oak Park Heights has not completed its own MOU with MnDOT and may • not be completed for some time.As you can understand,the City could not support language in the 106 MOU that may be contrary to the provisions of our own MOU;accordingly revisions may be necessary to this 106 MOU if the City is to be a concurring party.The City does realize that there are many partners in this process and that we hope that you will find our comments are constructive,as you are aware that Oak Park Heights will be specifically impacted by this project and that we must ensure that our residents and businesses are provided for. Our comments are as follows: • In the first paragraph,it indicates that the bridge is to run between Houlton,WI and Stillwater, MN.We know that this is probably not the case and should be amended to state Oak Park Heights not Stillwater. • The same first paragraph references a B1 Bridge Alignment alternative,the City has not yet taken a position on any alternative which may be a key issue precluding our"concurrence" with this 106 MOU document. • Page 5,Visual Quality Manual—Item 3,revise third sentence to include the City of Oak Park Heights,"MnDOT shall invite the City of Stillwater,THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, the Stillwater Historic Preservation Commission..." • Page 11,regarding Log Cabin Restaurant,Item 2 Parking,second to last sentence in this paragraph must be revised to also include Xcel Energy as a cooperating partner.Additionally, this paragraph must specifically include a provision that MnDOT shall provide clear and precise signage and access for the Restaurant throughout the construction process. • Page 11,regarding the Shoddy Mill,this paragraph must be revised to state that the City of Oak Park Heights has right of first refusal of these facilities prior to any final actions taken by MnDOT and that the City of Oak Park Heights is not required to make a final decision on the acquisition of these properties until such time as the project is fully funded,municipal consent is granted and a final construction schedule is complete and approved by the City of Oak Park Heights. • Page 12,Item 3 deals with the Scenic Overlook,to date this has not been settled in our own MOU conversation with MnDOT,this 106 MOU should state an additional condition on the final restoration of the Scenic Overlook requires the concurrence of the City of OPH as outlined in the MOU w/MnDOT.MnDOT shall also provide clear and concise signage and access to the Scenic Overlook during and after the construction process. Please let me know if you have any : estions. : t Re.,�T:f is 4( City ; .% finis or ■ Cc: City Council Members Mark Vierling Dennis Postler I 0 A Eric A. Johnson From: Carol Cully[carol.cully @dot.state.mn.us] •Sent: Friday,April 01,2005 2:30 PM jsoderberg @lstnewrichmond.com; Idean @achp.gov;jbsmsteve @aol.com; marymccomber @aol.com;jaykimble @attbi.com; rwiebusch @cgstl.uscg.mil; jaykimble @ci.stillwater.mn.us;croixnet @comcast.net; hollinsheadml @comcast.net; rebecca.wooden @dnr.state.mn.us; humris@dnr.state.wi.us; Rick Amebeck; thomas.beekman @dotstate.wi.us; laszewski.virginia@epa.gov; Cheryl Martin; nick_rowse©fws.gov; memmcc53 @hotmail.com; hliebrman @lieberman-nelson.com; dennis.gimmestad @mnhs.org; larrykennedy @mymailstation.com;Tom_Bradley @nps.gov; wberndt@pressenter.com;jplaskinco.com©prodigy.net; tramberg @scchwy.org; bmcmahon @universityunited.com; daniei.j.seemon@usace.army.mil; empson©usfamily.net; rabemstein@whs.wisc.edu; bethdiem @yahoo.com Cc: tdddjd@aol.com; tom.lovejoy @dnr.state.wi.us;Alana Getty; Robert Vockrodt; Dave Hall; Gerry Larson; Jacqueline Sluss; Jennifer Conover,Joseph Hudak; Karl Weissenbom; Mary McFarland; Peter Davich;Todd Clarkowski;Val Svensson; brent.pickard@dot.state.wi.us; donatd.gutkowski @dot.state.wi.us; kassandra.walbum @dot.state.wi.us; robert.newbery@dotstate.wi.us; terry.pederson@dot.state.wi.us; keyes @ecr.gov; matt nikolay@feingold.senate.gov; Julie Dingle; Robin Schroeder;jerkel @mncenter.org; royce_yeater @nthp.org; Michael.O'Malley@ostdotgov;croixedc @pressenter.com; dbeaudet @pro-ns.net;jerikson @resolv.org; mhughes©resolv.org; rfisher @resolv.org; bbartz©srfconsulting.com; bdanner @srfconsulting.com; frobinson©srfconsulting.com; kholte©srfconsulting.com; rogertomten(@usfamily.net;theresa289 @yahoo.com Subject: Stakeholder Report Attachments: Project.update.4.1.05.doc; Carol Cully5.vcf ectupclate.4.1. Carol Cully5.vcf 5.doc(29 ... (704 B) Attached you will find the Project Update - St. Croix River Crossing! Have a great weekend everyone! Carol Cully Mn/DOT Metro District Program Delivery Office Administrative Assistant Intermediate Phone: 651/582-1355 Hours: 7:30 - 4:00 Fax: 651/582-1302 email: carol.cully @dot.state.mn.us Make It A Great Day! • 1 4-1-n s F q,1.- Fete" R. i4rhl bec(- vi,. Cora) eJity To: Stakeholder Group From: Rick Arnebeck,East Metro Area Manager Subject: Project Update—St. Croix River Crossing Much has been going on with subgroup work over the last couple months for work that must be completed before the Final EIS can be completed. A brief summary of the work is provided below: 1. Section 106 MOA(ACHP/FHWA—lead) Laura and Cheryl have led this activity to develop the specific language(in detail) for the MOA. There have been several marathon sessions with this effort and will continue through April. Completion of this effort will allow us to finalize the historic/cultural mitigation elements. • 2. Draft Section 7A Analysis and Report(NPS—lead) SRF has been working diligently to provide data, information and visuals to the NPS as they work on various elements of the analysis. Work continues on this on a weekly basis and this effort is hoped to have the bulk of the work completed in April. 3. Section 4(f)Determination(Mn/DOT/Stillwater—LEAD) Since the Loop Trail has an impact on both Kolliner Park and Lowell Park, it is necessary to get a"no adverse impact"determination from the City of Stillwater. A final concept for the trail location has been agreed to by the loop trail group, subject yet to SHPO review, so this is now ready to begin the process with the city and is expected to take approximately two months. 4. TH 36 through Oak Park Heights—Preferred alternative description(Mn/DOT— Lead) Feedback has been received from both Stillwater and Oak Park Heights on the concept of staged improvements on TH 36 as relates to the concept originally approved in 1995. The wording for the "preferred alternative"is being worked on now and should be finalized in the next couple of weeks. • A ' • 5. Cumulative and Indirect Impacts(Mn/DOT/Wis/DOT/FHWA—lead) In response to comments received on the Drat EIS as new chapter has been developed for each of these areas and a more detailed analysis and evaluation on Indiirect Impacts is being developed—a draft on this section is expected within the next two weeks or so. We are continuing discussions at the agency level regarding mitigation of both the federal and state levels. 6. Response to Comments on Draft EIS We received well over 1000 comments on the Draft EIS. Some of these comments have resulted in further analysis and study by SRF; some of the comments have resulted in clarification and reorganization of information within the EIS for better understanding. All of the comments are being responded to. In addition to this, SRF has been working diligently to condense the Draft EIS into a shorter(and lighter)format that will be easier to read,understand and use. All of these efforts will likely continue through April. It is only after this work is completed(at least in draft form)that SRF can begin to develop and print the FEIS in a format for Cooperating Agency Review. As a result of the ongoing work that remains to be completed and the work required to go into the FEIS afterwards, the FEIS would not likely be available to review at a stakeholder meeting until later June. • In addition to the work going on for the FEIS,we have been developing information for use relating to the funding needs for the project at both the state and federal level. The federal transportation bill presently has some good"seed money"in for the project on both the Minnesota side and Wisconsin side. -This is a good sign. - We have also been gathering background information and coordinating with Metro transit and others relating to the transit feasibility study. - We have also been working with the media and local communities from Hudson to Osceola on both sides of the River to plan for the closure of the lift bridge this summer for the rehab and repair project. -Final contract negotiation is being completed for the VQMP and we should be able to establish our VQMP Committee and kick-off the VQMP work in May. -If you have questions or would like more detail on a particular topic or issue,please feel free to give me a call (651/582-1406) or a email to: richard.arnebeck(a7dot.state.mn.us. As you are aware,Mike is trying to fmd a workable date for the next stakeholder meeting. I 90: • rr ° 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 March 10s',2005 Mr.Rick Arnebeck Minnesota Dept.of Transportation—Metro Division Water's Edge Building 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE:Response to Jan 6th,2005 Correspondence Dear Rick, Enclosed is an executed copy of the City's current position relative to our correspondence of January 6th, • 2000.Please let me •••17 if you have any questions. 5 st Re s, c obn,co'1 City Ajdii i .strator Cc: Weekly Notes VIII • 41I■ RESOLUTION:"‘05-03-13 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS' RESPONSE TO THE JANUARY 6,2005 LETTER FROM THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS; In 1958 the Minnesota Department of Transportation formally began looking for a new St. Croix River bridge crossing at the time of construction of a 4-lane Highway 36 extension from Minneapolis to Stillwater, and WHEREAS;the Minnesota Department of Transportation sounded the St. Croix River bottom in the winter of 1961-1962 in the central corridor location for a proposed bridge, and WHEREAS; this proposed 1958 new river bridge crossing did not require any highway improvements to the new expanded Highway 36, and WHEREAS;the average annual traffic count crossing the St. Croix River was less than 6,000 vehicles a day, and, due to the lack of funding and downtown Stillwater business opposition to the loss of through traffic,the project was suspended in 1962, and WHEREAS; in the early 1970's a new effort began to locate a new bridge across the St. Croix River,with the proposed Highway 212 expansion to four lanes from downtown St. Paul to • Wisconsin, due to the lack of funding, interest in a new 4-lane freeway to St. Paul the project *as suspended in 1972, and WHEREAS; in the 1972 roadway proposal, local business owners saw the massive road way changes to the local highways proposed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and understand the considerable impact these changes may have on the local business community, and WHEREAS; in the early 1980's a new effort began to locate a new bridge across the St. Croix River,the Minnesota Department of Transportation took the position that bridges in Wild and Scenic Riverways were not reviewable by the National Park Service. The 1995 project was conditionally_approved by the City of Oak Park Heights and was vetoed in 1996 by the Park Service and Federal District Court and upheld the National Park Service Veto in April of 1998, and WHEREAS; in the summer of 1998 renewed efforts began to find a compromise for a new St. Croix River crossing and in the fall of 2000 Braun C compromise was reached by most of the parties,however, the mitigation plan for Wisconsin land use and Wisconsin DNR requirement to remove the existing lift bridge brought on a new project impasse and in January 2001 Minnesota Department of Transportation suspended the project, and WHEREAS;the MNDOT cost estimate to build Highway 36 with the Braun C location and buttonhook freeway design was $169.7 million, and • WHEREAS;beginning in 2000 an intraregional corridor study began to study the Highway 36 roadway design from the Highway 95 to Interstate Highway 694 determining that the lane capacity of the new bridge would have a direct impact on the existing Highway 36 roadway,and that the increase of traffic crossing a new proposed bridge would require Highway 36 be a freeway from Highway 95 to Interstate 694. The Minnesota Department of Transportation found no support from Lake Elmo,Grant,Pine Springs or Mahtomedi to create a freeway design out of Highway 36, and WHEREAS; in 2002 the 12-month Trunk Highway Partnership study was completed,which supported converting Highway 36 into a freeway design with buttonhooks interchanges in the Stillwater and Oak Park Heights area,however,many local businesses did not support the study's outcome, and WHEREAS; Congressional Representatives Kennedy and Kind requested$135 million in extra federal funds for the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin's 80% federal funds share of the new St. Croix River bridge, and WHEREAS: in the fall of 2003 the Technical Advisory Group formed by MNDOT,to minimize the impacts of the Highway 36 buttonhook design at their final meeting in March 2004,the TAG did not pass any final recommendations for a Highway 36 design,the conflict between the • Minnesota Department of Transportation and the parties could not be resolved, and WHEREAS; at a joint Oak Park Heights,Stillwater and Washington County workshop held on November 30,2004 the Minnesota Department of Transportation indicated that the buttonhook freeway highway design would not be part of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and that the 1995 plan will be their preferred highway design(among existing plans).The communities requested the Minnesota Department of Transportation to respond with a plan for additional highway design work and it was agreed that any MNDOT design recommendations were to be included in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement must be complete by March 1,2004, and WHEREAS;Highway 36,with the 1995 roadway design up to the new river crossing,would according to MNDOT estimate,reduce the overall cost of the project from$425 million to $315 million, and WHEREAS;the Minnesota Department of Transportation's response to the affected communities request for Highway 36 design planning is provided in a letter dated January 6, 2005, and given the conditions of further study and the late response time gives no reasonable time for each community to prepare a recommendation to be incorporated into the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and WHEREAS: the 1995 plan submitted to the City in January 2005 by the Minnesota Department • of Transportation substantially deviates from the1995 plan conditionally approved by the City of Oak Park Heights in 1995, and ao WHEREAS;the Minnesota Department of Transportation indicates that due to the lack of funding and a need to reduce the funding requested from Congress,Highway 36 freeway buttonhook design will be postponed and be added to the State of Minnesota Transportation Improvement Plan for the year 2025,and WHEREAS;REAS;the Minnesota Department of Transportation currently projects that it will only spend$20 million to improve Highway 36 under their latest version of the 1995 plan,and WHEREAS;the cost of the project,local opposition from the freeway design,stopped the Minnesota Department of Transportation from including the Highway 36 buttonhook freeway design proposal into the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, and WHEREAS;the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights indicated in a letter to the Minnesota Department of Transportation in January 2001,that it would not support a new river bridge crossing without improvements to Highway 36. Highway 36 improvements NOW,THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED, that any propo sed gh Y P must minimize the social,environmental,economic, infrastructure, and community burdens,and local traffic impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights; and • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED;the City of Oak Park Heights in its review of this project will use,among other review processes,the 2000 municipal consent process to fully explore options, g P . c tale design solution to Highway community impacts and economic efficiencies to find an a cep b gn � Y 36 that fulfills the best interests of its residents;and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED;that the City of Oak Park Heights requests that the Minnesota Department of Transportation support the TEA-21 Bill which includes$500,000 for design study to determine a final layout for Highway 36;and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED;that the City of Oak Park Heights requests that the Minnesota Department of Transportation request the State of Minnesota and Congress to fully fund the local utility relocations and other local economic losses and impacts of this project. uti ty e P Approved by the City Council of the City of O eights this 841 4,, t = ch 2005. i Dam':eaudet�ayor, Ar • Ar c . Johnso• •ity Administrator v 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 February 25,2005 Mr.Rick Arnebeck Minnesota Dept.of Transportation—Metro Division Water's Edge Building 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE:Meeting for MOU Dear Rick, As you know we have a meeting scheduled for Wednesday,March 2°d,2005,9:30 am to again discuss our revised MOU for the TH 36/Bridge Project.I believe that we have made some progress on the document. However,at this point the City needs redirect the discussion back to the eight essential elements that need • to be in any MOU.Once these critical elements are specifically addressed the City can then address the balance of the issues and municipal consent. I would refer you back to the City's Resolution 04-10-49 which states those key eight elements: 1. A commitment from MnDOT that the entire project(i.e.the Bridge and TH 36 improvements)will proceed as a single indivisible project and will follow the pre-2001 Municipal Consent law, 2. A full funding commitment and mitigation plan from MnDOT for the anticipated and necessary utility relocation costs that will inevitably confront the City resulting from any modification to Trunk Highway 36, 3. A full funding commitment and mitigation plan from MnDOT for the reconstruction of the frontage roads and their continued maintenance, 4. A commitment from MnDOT that installation of the proposed Boat Ramp Facility as proposed by the Department of Natural Resources will be deleted from the Project as far as it affects a proposed location in the City of Oak Park Heights or that a comprehensive compensatory agreement between the City,DNR and MnDOT be completed, 5. A commitment from MnDOT that all TH 36 traffic signals and their maintenance must be provided by the Project or in the future by parties other than the City, 6. A full funding commitment from MnDOT that protects and mitigates against negative impacts on City homes,businesses,and City owned lands and facilities etc that may stem from short-term and long-term noise,smoke,odor,construction activities and/or vibration, 7. A commitment from MnDOT that all excess lands previously acquired,or future lands,and not required for the Final Project, however that is resolved to be,shall be returned to private ownership and to the tax rolls of the city with its redevelopment and shall be coordinated with the City housing and/or comprehensive plan, 8. A full funding commitment from MnDOT that includes a complete reconstruction of the Scenic Overlook preserving its view. Accordingly,the city needs a commitment that these elements will be placed into the MOMJ.How these • items are"wordsmithed"can and should be part of our discussion,but unless a commitment can be made to have these critical items as part of the MOU the city does not see the benefit of proceeding with any further discussions. • I have attempted to prepare some draft language that begins the discussion on these eight items: 1. MnDOT acknowledges and agrees that the entire project(i.e.the Bridge and TH 36 improvements)will proceed only as a single and indivisible project and will follow the pre-2001 Municipal Consent law. The letter dated, 12/17/04 from Rick Arnebeck,MnDOT has concurred with the City that the Municipal Consent review process for the project shall be as in place prior to 2001 legislative changes. 2. As a result of any TH 36 modification,the City of Oak Park Heights shall cooperate with MnDOT to secure utility relocation/replacement funds from available grant sources.However,should those full funds not be secured by the City,MnDOT does commit to fully fund all anticipated and necessary utility relocation costs as identified by the City's Engineer,including but not limited to land acquisition,engineering,design and construction. 3. MnDOT shall provide for the reconstruction of the TH 36 frontage roads within OPH and their continued maintenance.All frontage roads shall be fully reconstructed and complete by 2010,The City of Oak Park Heights shall not be responsible to provide any funding for road reconstruction and shall not be required to maintain such roads. 4. Unless a comprehensive compensatory agreement between the City,DNR and MnDOT is completed,the Boat Ramp Facility as proposed by the Department of Natural Resources,or any other similar boat ramp or facility,will be deleted from the Project as far as it affects a proposed location in the City of Oak Park Heights. • 5. As a result of any TH 36 modification,the City of Oak Park Heights shall cooperate with MnDOT to secure variances or other funding that may be available from grant sources for new or replacement traffic signals.However,should those variances or grant fimds not be secured by the City,MnDOT does commit to fully fund all anticipated and necessary new or replacement traffic signals.All future maintenance shall be provided by MnDOT and/or by parties other than the City, 6. MnDOT shall protect and mitigate against negative impacts on City homes,businesses,and City owned lands and facilities etc that may stem from short-elm(construction)and long-term noise, smoke,odor,construction activities and/or vibration. 7. MnDOT does hereby commit that all excess lands previously acquired,or future lands,and not required for the Final Project,however that is resolved to be,shall be returned to private ownership and the tax rolls with its redevelopment shall be coordinated with the City housing and/or comprehensive plan, 8. MnDOT shall secure and provide the necessary funding for a complete reconstruction of the Scenic Overlook preserving its view. We will see you on Wednes'., Best R �ds City • •uu strator • Cc: Mark Vierling Dennis Postler Todd Clarkowski I _ • Weekly Notes • S 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 Bonestroo 0 Rosene Office: 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 Anderlik& www.bonestroo.com Associates Engineers&Architects January 28, 2005 Mr. Eric Johnson, Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Boulevard P.U. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082-2007 Re: Highway 36 Improvements Utility Relocation BRA File No. 55-05-000 Dear Eric: As per your request, we have estimated the cost to relocate the utilities for the Highway 36 Improvements. This estimate was based on the 1995 plan. Following is a brief description of our assumptions and the cost for relocating the utilities. The proposed improvements for Highway 36 are at grade; therefore, it was assumed that the majority of the trunk utilities will not be in conflict. At the intersection of Highway 36 and Oakgreen Avenue the frontage road is proposed to be pulled back. As a result, it will be necessary to relocate sanitary sewer and water main at this location. We have estimated a total cost of$500,000 to relocate these utilities. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (651) 604-4788. Sincerely, BONE, Op TR. , ROSI.NE, ANDE1?.LIK & A.SSOCIATE;S INC 4/./ Karen S. Erickson, P.E. ce.. DMP,DI);:i;File—Bonestr.ot7&Associates KX55\5;05000\VVork_Ixr Pregt ss?}}:n:;oi k SI'}I;l,h a J3srei caeeutilitie z cc,st1,951-2E-05.&x; • St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, Willmar, MN • Milwaukee, WI • Chicago, IL Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned • n� ReAv.,,,,/ Ark dow-beick • ---FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES W/ OPH STAFF--- KS/ Zoo St. Croix River Crossing Project Oak Park Heights Resolution 04-10-49 passed October 18, 2004. Clarification of 8 points: 1) "A commitment from MnDOT that the entire project(i.e. the Bridge and TH 36 improvements) will proceed as a single indivisible project and will follow the pre- 2001 Municipal Consent law," Response: An additional"Whereas"will be inserted into the draft MOU according to Rick's paragraph from previous letter regarding use of pre-2001 municipal consent law. Noting that 161.172 states that nothing contained in this section shall be construed as in any way limiting the commissioner's discretion to determine the priority and • programming of trunk highway construction. Propose setting up a meeting of Mn/DOT and OPH attorneys to clarify rights of each and recommend where this project is in the Municipal Consent Process. A Municipal Consent Process specific to this project will then be developed and followed. 2) "A full funding commitment and mitigation plan from MnDOT for the anticipated and necessary utility relocation costs that will inevitably confront the City resulting from any modifications to TH 36, " Response: Need to work on a strategy to bring federal HPP to meet this need. Utility relocation need/cost can be developed according to current MnDOT Cost Participation Policy. Utility costs outside of this policy could be pursued from other federal sources. 3) "A full funding commitment and mitigation plan from MnDOT for the reconstruction of the frontage roads and their continued maintenance, " Response: As per the Mn/DOT Cost Participation Policy, construction of frontage roads can • be 100%MnDOT cost,but issues such as drainage costs are based off of contributing flows. Maintenance of frontage roads would be Mn/DOT's I , w • responsibility until a responsible party can be found to take those responsibilities over. The appropriate level of maintenance would be determined by MnDOT. 4) "A commitment from MnDOT that installation of the proposed Boat Ramp Facility as proposed by the Department of Natural Resources will be deleted from the Project as far as it affects a proposed location in the City of Oak Park Heights or that a comprehensive compensatory agreement between the City, DNR, and MnDOT be completed, " Response: Currently there are no plans to construct a Boat Ramp in OPH. The Mn/DNR may be conducting a boat ramp location study and environmental documentation in the river valley. 5) "A commitment from MnDOT that all traffic signals and their maintenance must be provided by the Project or in the future by parties other than the City, " Response: If the traffic signals meet warrants and are justified, MnDOT agrees to pursue a • variance process in order to pay 100 %of the costs,but it cannot guarantee that the variance will be granted. 6) `A full funding commitment from MnDOT that protects and mitigates against negative impacts on City homes, businesses, and City owned lands and facilities etc that may stem from short-term and long-term noise, smoke, odor, construction activities and/or vibration, " Response: MnDOT is limited to obligations under current regulations,rules, statutes, and specifications. There will be short term noise, smoke, dust, odors, etc. during construction but every effort will be made to minimize these. Staging and location of construction, along with timing, can be coordinated with the City so that these items are minimized. MnDOT's Construction Specifications govern these activities. 7) "A commitment from MnDOT that all excess lands previously acquired, or future lands, and not required for the Final Project, however that is resolved to be, shall be returned to private ownership and the tax rolls with its redevelopment shall be coordinated with the City housing and/or comprehensive plan," • I _ _ • Response: As allowed by law, MnDOT will reconvey excess property within the City to the City for public purposes. 8) `A full funding commitment from MnDOT that includes a complete reconstruction � .f f g f of the Scenic Overlook preserving its view;" Response: Mn/DOT's Historic State Waysides Report will guide the repairs necessary to this site. Mn/DOT would continue to own and maintain it, if a responsible party can not be found to take over those responsibilities. The appropriate level of maintenance would be determined by Mn/DOT. The MnSHPO will be a key element in this issue and any final decisions relating to the wayside rest area. • Attachment: Pre-2001 Municipal Consent Statutes P:\MYFILES\St.CroixRiverCrossing\OPH resolution of 8 points--responses 2-16-05a.doc - _ • • • , •.1, ! , • _ - ,,f, t;...iv,.• :,..e, ' ', ..:. . -.,-r-iv.4.0:,..,.,--. - --. . -z. . .. ., .,.,... ,-16U7 ;-.TRUNK HIGHWAY SYSTEM .92 V,',F .,, !.93 „...,... . .:::,-,•:*,..i•!%.C.p...,,,:,-.,-...:-, • '..linclAhetrestgutidit of.1:differences)over interstate',routes;,and I projects,;and that ithe ,•.Ek... „- ' Subdi,t 1-,:,4,=',. .'1-,•:).:. ,. .„. .,. 1' -(-.• '------,.1-.,.• iprovisions.;;0$eetiona-1141.161 to 11§14234for„local approval of trunk -Owls must 1-e.:-,:t .:: f.,,4rvPk.D ?heithed:ified.ftifitheinterState i highway system in thelighti bt:these various consider- 4a- , '''... •. - • ?-",v".--,41-4,- .41,1_,_?,•--, ).1.44schti - . .. ations. Before proceeding with the preparation of the final pros for the iConStructibt, ..4,- .: :--.i, politan''-co -i, -4r4;?.•,'..) -1...,-:- .1-.. ,c''`.....:',....,- reconstruction,'•oriitgptSYMplg'9f-a#I1rclatc:0.4:the intersttre mt.94ii,tyihg•,.,svit.bbi.'any -qv . ';'-, 4 PIPAWSI';'W pity,,the c660:ttssi6n0'1134,sOrpit,t9 kcs-goyething hody,torteliminary plansLcArring „ f'_,:::: ..,,,,,0 A qSjibet.-,:i6,,,,,", r914q1&atirci*,71:191rell*4.1YE44114 014116,Subnliqe4 41)44,c4 a l.e119;Ttr.40...fr119-0 V-••- ,-, ,-, ''--''• • •---,--t-4 .„,,i31,,,,,, -,,strikticito, .-,,,-,,,,.,-,-:.:, such s,46..rtini:a4takliat, the commissioner deems helOgi,,t).-the governing body .'...;',t.';' '-.- ' lodatidna.:-'-' I'''-'-''Are'4; -. ..- 'eP.Y.•-_,' appraising the PIPS,.,$.0111-14.P.„517.: ..:,. il - 1 . , ;. 1 LI i„. , .':" .,4,:.-2. ,. ilit4S6.0104:* :..(b)Any public hearing on location of an,interstate,:ronteiheld in scompliance with .-4''- 'of bridgeatf'oiie4-.-------;'t ....„--„....,..,. . .federal requirements shalf he-,..heId at least one month aitoN, bb*issign-to the governing 0,..i,,,i.i ., :: b10q41 :;31-4_11-',--% : body,of the report provided for in.',this,,subdivision.eAftep-ifie,publie.hearing.,and on =.„„-;$1)."- ''r-ii4UVil.42:edii;--,q*' preparing final plans,;the con-gnissionekshalltsOrhitthei,fmal glana„,to the_gowning 41;--:"• ) .typical 1.='....i.51.‘ ,!` ertiss•s.c., 3 t i',,,, titi boclytor,approVAI,If the gpy.q*ngi§gdy49P;-iriPt•APPI;_9Yert.lhe f444,plans within three ..,f tlitien's16iiWned, '•ill,°Aths,,After g4.1?Ritieck,the.)...e994§119getilt14.31 ..efez thet)01.,Ails0,(1.),-the,7*4i,-Cities ••;• , :!' aii00110.filti- MettPlit9litAll-Area-IVantliegti.-,q9,..... s.51,914..,if A.4.-PiPieetAs,*ithitr.,the area Pt lits '':..t:. :', :::: PiPi1W6:1441itrt:::: itgi..stlilignir-cg'4),-z._.the,t11*ej,P44-Sk*.9tY.committee Initt,e,et,',.19A-_,514.,terAici,-iiules,At#41-40 ..'„1:i'-:', :,: ' `?iliiiigNO***1 under section 162.09,subdivision g it the project-,is i elsewhere„.iri,tbq.,st4e.g.a,nlegtber ),:„.,;,•,.'.' ,: .,!;.:7: T.f.? „--i.-:6:..2,t)14; , of the advisory committee 1 is from-4 the 11wociP4V concerned that member shall be ".....1:.--- -:::"- .. — 161.11Z 141,J$1,01f.':'.'''• the -,t,F,.' texellgcl'-' If'-'5tilg'444n .1.41.P,,sfl...referred. the e.5411111is§rotlo%,99PinlitteC- shall1*9 -.•• ..-t.„',- : :„, ..t.,.,,,. t.e...,::,..`,'1,''',Ira,-,- '..i4i N'4ctii.f f6tr,b4j,-- •=cPi*P.4§Aimf.,,4.P4;Xti•PgetYeming,hticILaPIP19Pijer.09-,itY4cligrese1*... ..9' cfl5P41,0C19r .1.- . -,,!---. therecif,'located g.gai4sp,,,,.a.pproVat of•the..,-.,,plarts„so f referred. Not later thanfortee„months.,after such IL.- i.4.,. irnproVeel.in the,:inaiiii- earings444-404PePae1gistuciyi as #),deems desirable, it shall approve or disapprove ji-?..i"- :=' body, siitalr''iniiiii-CiVI3. such•plans..-making such additional -ecommenclation$,PPriSi4tePt Mithltateand federal ''41S- f 61.1:4-11 VditlifiV6f..f6=-T,'.,-,,f,A; requirements as fdeems,AppropTiate,and it shall submit ay4ittenreport,t containing ,s::.- ,,,.; iiiii*O'Vgni8utiletin"tA findings and.reeommendationst•jto•the commissioner; and ,tbq-,goyerninx,body.,::The .. inefeaa&',.Orqedii66 hrr;';','2 .,-.. .....,.. commi§§ipRerk444,nos.,PgIcPeOi with. t174,P.T0P9...sect P9ii .ic49i1,-.1Irccoot•r4 ctiPfY,...9r R-,; '," of-wayl•:This sections.•-':'.gi't improvement e*Cept in accordancetwith,planaapprOyegbythe,goverging,bpdyA,iif -.3',":: ...z., mat*trafa'cOtiol de* • referred to.the commission or-committee, until after them:al:00PP-Pk.committee has --!-- 'frifeiPaliOei,,-',''''':' '14- Madeits'S443;and'016is..41*A#0±.*g.1*r0#8.:*(164-711*W44 an additional.90,,cpys :;:;ii,;:-' 14 ,..;-:,„, *54 t !.' -,.•,-4-t0f:- , ■76ifti -Sviiiiiek.t6 consider the giaiis*gitially:subtnittedor.such modified plans as may -::.';.- .rF': -oi,%09.r..-9*-411g.P0:144T--'.; be submitted to it by' the commissioner following the report'of the commission or ,..:,;..s,"-....,. l; 69401-15,114.dees dis4dtia i:".;'i cOlitniaiSii:`. committee.If within such 90-day period,the governing body does not approve theOlans ::::t.7:•---. -...,:, ......, -,-,-.•-,„, ,. .:11i) submitted to it,.and if the commissioner;thent,wishes_Ito proceed with the project ....:--,t,, q.. ' ..:14qtgq::POP.c.;312,.,-A according to plans differin*.substantiallyfront the plans recommended by the commis- 4-,-.••• j:•:... 161.17T,SUBMISSION OF 'SiOtir-hr'edinnifttedin,`,iii'report.'-te*'7cothitili4lottei.-.Shalli,'-p'efdte.fitticteediiti's4.ith,the II ,•;.,,. ! The,,t--.1? fl.: ;:::;',C.4,:4n.,17;"1).C.0--•:::',i project.••the''a 4i-ifieri'iegbliViith theet)rhiniaaron'Or'ecnnntiee and the governing body ,:i:7- __ :',--!-; : .,,,-! ,cs:t.,inp*ipilo:shA stating fully the reasons'for doing so.'Whenever plans are referred to the Twm Cities ,, -2.... 'a trii.4-111g442/4, 11,19P0,§.et Metropolitan Area Planning Commission,the commission shall be reimbursed from the 14--_ --',,.,-.7..,: municipality-. - - . 17 ,9f)PaChA .0.iAegt trunk highway fund for actual and necessary expenses incurred by the commission in ie i:-=,. -_,... ... ' Pftheheed:for;thi§ mop9,5, staff work incident to consideration of plans and,,action,thereon by the commission. i-jr: .:: :-,:... TA9V§ *.b.kkw•gp.,: att.gcler Whenever plans are referred to the advisory committee on rules, members of the '',...2i... .t •:,*#''..- tage54,14',41§2-ivAirtages in 1 committee shall be paid their'necessary.expenses'to the same extent and in the.same . .Pc9tAiiirA otelt,:attchlaiOi,:. manner as for its duties in considering the commissioner's rules,, , . . " , ...- , , .',,e3.','', '4PPT.C.,,xPa4P,T9i4'11- ..-of Ac, „ ,„. ,. „ , , .. „,t,,, t ,t „•,, ),.1 ,.. I.,-- -.1 ,.,- .. ..- .„.:. .., ,relation_toe-tating and lit History: 1959 c 500'art*j s 1 t'1973 F ip,:cirt,..5,S,7;:.(9,454,,c,,A41 si.,/,();,!.9.8 ,,c444; ,,-,1; ' ,„7'-' , ' .1a-•:....4-P9,47i'cmik,4p:4 facilities, 1991 c 199 art I s 55 ' ' ' ' -'- ' '.' - - - -- - -, - an future use f the prop 16L171'ROUTES,THROUH MUsitCEPAITIES:.'DEFINITIONS: ;'--r,!-',, ..,t'irt1,- -, l ' •,:. 1.,:::;:;:-_,: ' 'PEPPPAI .Vrt9t,.:1?#, CilristP,I,.9.,tk.4 .,....,, .„. .:,...,., .,,f r• • ... ,.,, ,,,,,,,•,,--, ;,-si.--.-.-ei,-,. ' •-, • $ , ,, , - -;f:: ; ,-,.1.-i-, ::.f if 1 t''; I,S•:.;ii: ,;:;■, ',,,,:.". : -TPP9MA41,4':,444''1?:e'. .1113Plitt( SObdiViSiCili 1. Scope. As used ill sP061:1s1-61:171i214477, the tci:71s,(1Ffujp.ct.In this section have the jmeanings kiii,eti,..the:j* ,-,,- ',-..,,,• - ' , ....•- -,•-,•,-,,' -•-••• .•'..-,' :'''- --'7-•v:•' ' fo-nlml4slons 1•4.-the aria aff . ... . SUbd.,`2:;.COmmisSioner. Commissioner" means the,tcintinissioter/of transtiorta- --. ..- :kig.„- . *9._,N,4y,sk;or as otherwise tiottw',-: ,'',. ,.1 , f. ,,-.e. :,,,.:,,, ., ', ..:, ,t.r., :,,i/i, ,-;',I,,,-: -..,,,,q-',:,, .,,:-., ,'• 11 -,-, r•,.',,,:•,:-', ---' . :•-i.i.:.i,:,.f's,...-.19 _1_013gAi4t,,hold-*T.i ,. .:,.:.;,.,,r„,_,•;, !..,:-. -, =,.--, -,,,- , 4, -, , ,'•,,s.,.,•14 ,,, yiL.e•i,), - 1-,- Or..i rovpuldnt.:::pt such time as Shiold. 3. Governing body of a municipality. Governing bgdy-,or.,.a nutu9Txuy. r::•; .'4,$•-rk•-,-,4-,f.•;‹,-;:iiii;,, , ,d,.. --,,- —— —:,, ,:-•-• ..,i ,--, ,...: -,..;. fi :4-:11 ..-, ....'1-),i:. 'Jil, -_,,,,--tx'-..,N ?, f _;.:,...,., ,q,.,..ppri§tructtort.or,n34 means the duly elected councilor a Tur4,1p.A1-,ity,,t,.:.,,,— ,= • •-,.•..,-,...-,:r-•-••=t-. -. •,..... ,f;.-. ', '-' ' 7.T.,..4,0A'-fiNot:le 7 iii.;,.ii -—--- --- ---6,- .=',''''.)--i-,... --,' — 1.', ,,-— -- - , ' l,.,i-„- !,,/4.,p1,,,,,--: . than-A0,44Ysi§Pf9TP Subd..)-4.-Mgnicipality...-4‘fMunic.ipaliW-,meansany„city*ithia:-thoiststiv,;..:„-,,,.;..,t, ''X• i:AEMIVI-119g9YPni.ing body of each 7,i'' -114421. .r.,:.,?,* -'. .*1•14.f.414-0,.:*0, ..-r 7.., -.%;ItYlgilek.-• 92 93 TRUNK HIGHWAY SYSTEM 161.173 )jects; and that the Subd. 5. Metropolitan area. "Metropolitan area" includes the counties of Anoka, highway plans must 1 Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington, presently under the ;e various consider- jurisdiction, for metropolitan area planning and coordination purposes, of the metro- or the construction, politan council established pursuant to chapter 473, which council is hereinafter em lying within any referred to as"agency". y plans covering the Subd. 6. Layout plan. "Layout plan" means a preliminary plan for the proposed a report containing construction or reconstruction of a highway facility which plan indicates the proposed governing body in locations, elevation, width of lanes, and the type and location of proposed roadway intersections or interchanges together with the approximate location,width, and length in compliance with i of bridges and the approximate right-of-way limits and access locations,where a PP lica- on to the governing ble. ilic hearing and on Subd. 7. Construction plan. "Construction plan" means the plan sheets, profiles, ns to the governing typical cross sections and supplemental drawings which show the location, character, I plans within three dimensions and details of the highway construction or improvement work to be done, (1) the Twin Cities and which are substantially in conformance with the plan which will be submitted to tin the area of its prospective bidders. d rules established History:1969 c 312 s 1;1973 c 123 art 5 s 7;1976 c 166 s 7;1980 c 509 s 51 state. If a member it member shall be 161.172 MUNICIPALITIES TO CONSENT. ittee shall give the (a) Except for routes on the interstate system, no state trunk hi'hwa or any part ent the case for or thereof, located within the corporate limits of any municipality, shall be constructed or mo after such improved in the manner specified in this section without the consent of the governing grove iisapprove all body of such munici di state and federal p ty, unless the procedures prescribed by sections 161.172 to 161.177 shall have been followed by the commissioner of transportation. The highway .eport containing its improvements requiring consent are limited to those improvements which alter access, veming body. The increase or reduce highway traffic capacity or require acquisition of permanent rights- reconstruction, or ,." of-way. This section shall not limit the power of the commissioner to regulate traffic or verning body or, if r install traffic control devices or other safety measures on trunk highways located within n or committee has - municipalities. additional 90 days - 5; _. dified plans as may ,e (b) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as in any way limiting the the commission or commissioner's discretion to determine the priority and programming of trunk highway 4 approve the plans & construction. d=.with the project History:1969 c 312 s 2;1976 c 166 s 7;1980 c 533 s 6 led by the commis- 161.173 SUBMISSION OF CORRIDOR PROPOSAL. roceeding with the , the governing body The commissioner shall submit to the governing body of each municipality wherein to the Twin Cities a trunk highway is proposed to be constructed or improved, and to,the governing body eimbursed from the of each municipality adjacent to any such municipality, a report containing;a statement the commission in . of the need for this proposed construction or improvement, a description of alternate y the commission. routes which were considered by the commissioner and an explanation of the advan- s, members of the .,,° tages and disadvantages in the selection of any route considered. The report shall,also nt and in the same ' -' contain for each alternate, the following information: general alignment and profile, approximate points of access, highway classification, an approximate cost estimate, 8 s 70; 1986 c 444; relation to existing and planned regional and local development and to other transpor- tation routes and facilities, and a statement of the expected general effect on present and future use of the property within the corridor. Where a state trunk highway is proposed to be constructed or improved within;the metropolitan area, a copy of the report shall also be submitted to the metropolitan council. In all areas of the state a ie terms defined in copy of the report shall be sent to established regional, county and municipal planning commissions in the area affected by the highway project. Not less than 45 nor more )nerdkansporta- than 90 days, or as otherwise mutually agreed, after the report has been submitted, the commissioner shall hold a public hearing on the proposed highway construction or of amunicipality" improvement at such time and place within.any municipality wherein a portion of the proposed construction or improvement is located, as the commissioner shall determine. Not less than 30 days,before the hearing the commissioner shall mail notice,thereof to state. ;,, the governing body of each municipality or agency entitled to receive a copy of the 01'.,. r ....' >Y: ., . ,...., ,... 261:173 TRUNK HIGHWAY SYSTEM 94 sue`; report, and shall cause notice of the hearing to he published at least once each week V which meets:minim) for two successive weeks in a'newspaper or'newspapers having general circulation in disapproved within: such municipalities,the second publication to be not less than five days before the date construction plans ai of the hearing.The notice shall state the date, time; place and purpose of the hearing, k consistent with the ac shall describe the proposed or actual general location of the highway to be constructed the layout plan or an or improved, and shall state where the report may be inspected prior to the hearing by _ ` the commissioner,de p P y P P g y �� commissioner shall pi any interested person. The hearing shall be conducted by the commissioner or the w commissioner's designee,and shall be transcribed and a record thereof mailed to each s' to proceed;,with the municipality or agency entitled to receive a copy of the report. All interested persons 'i modified layout;plan shall be permitted to present their views on the proposed highway construction or - 1 layout plan in the ml improvement. The hearing may be continued as often as necessary. Within 120 days 0-3-,--, municipality or,agenc after the hearing completed, governing` y o g cy t � modified layout.plan :hearin is the bod of each municipality, as.a en ; agency within 60 days entitled to receive a copy of the report shall submit to the commissioner its approval or disapproval of the report. If all or any part of the ;report disapproved,is dd, the ' k: construction„plans am in or agency shall,state the, reasons for such,disapproval and suggested acquire the necessary ,, parity'and the comet changes in the report. The commissioner shall, before preparing additional plans;for t ; the proposed highway construction or improvement, submit to the governing body of � modification; the 'co each municipality or agency disapproving the report, a statement accepting or rejecting :4 161..f75: If the layout any suggested changes and the reasons for acceptance or rejection. { and the coma issione: History: 1969 e 312;s 3; 1980 509 s.52; 1984 c 654 art 3 s 52; 1986 c 444; 1994 e ' the date of the compl rye a copy of the layout 628 art 3 s 10 -; pursuant to section h 161.174 SUBMISSION'OF LAYOUT PLANS. ';` commissioner In the sinner or the'municij , The commissioner,shall submit to the.governing body of each municipality wherein appointment of an a,highway is proposed to be constructed or improved, a proposed layout plan for the altemative layout plat highway construction or improvement containing: the proposed location, .elevation, Histocy:1 u e3 width and geometries of the construction or improvement,together with.a statement of .; • the reasons therefor. Said plan shall also contain:.approximate right-of-way limits; a 161.175 APPEAL BO tentative schedule for right-of-way acquisition, if known; proposed access points; i Upon the reques frontage ,roads; separation structures and interchanges; location of utilities, when known; landscaping, illumination, a tentative construction schedule, if known; and the the members shall be estimated cost of the construction or improvement. The commissioner shall submit $ ' municipality-involved more than one layout plan.Each such plan shall also be submitted to the metropolitan ,, governing bodies of council if any portion of the proposed highway construction or improvement is Iocated "=`,,-i.,. appointment shall be which re solutions,sha in the metropolitan area. In all areas o€,the,state a copy of the layout plan,shall be sent ' _. resolutions from a mr to established regional, county and municipal planning commissions in the area said person shall be c affected.by the highway project. Not less than 90 nor more than 120 days after said include all disapproc plan has been submitted,the commissioner shall hold a public hearing on the proposed ;; submitted such reso , highway construction or improvement at such time and place within any municipality , wherein a portion of the construction or improvement is located, as the commissioner ': i commissioners reque of the supreme court shall determine. The hearing shall be noticed, held and conducted in the manner : upon five days'notice provided in section 161.173, except that the commissioner shall mail notice of the ; select a third membez hearing only to those municipalities and agencies entitled 'to receive-a copy of the last member was app layout plan. The hearing shall be transcribed and a record'thereof made available to ak - the third member up. each municipality or agency entitled to receive a copy of said plan. Within 180 "days y,i, first tvvo Members. after the'hearing is completed, the commissioner shall formally adopt a layout plan A highway'appeal boars copy the layout'plan as adopted shall be submitted to each municipality or'agency members. y sh entitled to receive a copy of'the proposed plan, together with the reasons for any and they provided.Memhes change in the plan as presented at the hearing.Within 120 days after the receipt'of the _ ; the state of Minnesott adopted layout plan, each such municipality or agency shall submit to the commissioner 5; its approval or disapproval of the Iayout plan and the reasons for such disapproval, and r: History:1969 c 3 proposed alternatives, which may' include a recommendation'of no highway. Such 1G1176``POWERS OI alternatives submitted by a municipality located within the Metropolitan''area shall, upon request of the municipality, be reviewed by the metropolitan council in order to =, Subdivision 1, 134 determine whether such`alternatives are likely to meet minimuni'federal requirements sinner and the affect The'metropolitan council is`authorized to provide`whatever assistance"it' deems layout plan as:propos 0 advisable to the submitting municipality in order to assist it in arriving at an,alternative 'federal;requirements<. a 4 94 '- TRUNK HIGHWAY SYSTEM 161.176 :ast once each week ' " which meets minimum federal requirements. If said;plan or any part thereof is not 2.neral circulation in disapproved within such period, the commissioner:may proceed to prepare final days before the date ;construction plans and ,specifications for the.highway construction or improvement pose of the hearing, = consistent with the adopted layout;plan, and may acquire the necessary right-of-way.If ay to be constructed ,She layout plan or any part thereof is,disapproved by any municipality or agency, and or to the hearing by 4he;commissioner.determines, to proceed with the plan without modifications, the ommissioner or the :commissioner shall proceed in;the manner provided in section 161.175:On determining ;reof mailed to each proceed with the plan with modifications, the commissioner shall submit the 1 interested persons imodified layout plan to,the municipalities and agencies entitled to receive the original way construction 'or , ,layout plan in the manner described above, for approval or disapproval,by each such ry. Within 120 days ,municipality or;agency within.60,days after receipt of the modified layout plan. If the nicipality or agency .;modified layout plan or any part"thereof is;not disapproved by any municipality or loner its approval or agency within 60 days after its receipt, the'commissioner may,proceed to prepare final is disapproved, the construction plans and specifications consistent with the modified layout plan, and may PP , .. oval and suggested acquire the necessary,right-of-way. If the modified plan is disapproved by any munici- additional plans for pahty'and the commissioner determines to proceed with the plan without additional e governing body of ,modification, the commissioner shall proceed in the manner provided in section �cepting or rejecting 161175. If the layout plan is disapproved, either'`as originally submitted"or as modified IAN::: and the commissioner does not act'pursuant to section 161.175,within one year from 1986 c 444; 1994 c .: $the'date of the completion of the hearing, any objecting`municipality entitled to receive { r a copy of the layout plan'by virtue of this section may invoke the appellate procedure --,,i-.4:- " ipttrsuant to section 161.175, in'the same manner as the same might be invoked by the -4, ...- - "'Con missioner. In the event the`appellate procedure is invoked by either the commis- nuni h = m stoner or the municipality, the commissioner shall hold a public hearing prior to the h' wherein M. appointment of an appeal board. Such hearing shall be limited to the proposed ! layout,plan for the � : alternative layout plans. location, .elevation •with a statement of 4„. ';''History:1969 c 312 s 4;1984 c 654 art 3s'53,'`'1986 c 444;1994 c 628 art 3 s 11 ight-of-way limits; a 5161175 APPEAL BOARD. 1 osed of access pwhen ='Upon the request of the,commissioner-an appeal board shall be appointed.One of 1 if utilities, d when '' the members shall be selected by the governor and one by the governing body of the if known;'andthe ,' ,nicipality,involved. If more:than one municipality is':involved in.the proposal the stoner shall sub'inn .r (governing bodies of the municipalities involved: shall appoint one member. This to the metropolitan _ glpointment shall be made by resolutions of the governing bodies of said municipalities noveme h is located *rich•resolutions:�shall be submitted to the governor. Whenthe.governor has received ut,planshall be sent �` � g g �� , s estlutions from a ma on of the municipalities nvolved designating the same fissions in the area �z ” 1 �'-' P gn g person, 120 days,after said said person shall be deemed appointed. If a majority of the municipalities which must ' include all disapproving municipalities have not agreed,on the same .person and bin a n'the`proposed submitted such resolutions to the governor within 60 days after receipt of the bin any municipality A f commissioner's request for rah'appeal:board by the commissioner,then the chief justice as the c them inner x, ,:'#,the supreme court shall appoint such member:,u on application b,the commissioner rted 'm';the'manner p PP ,. r , P,, PP Y mail notice of the Y upon five days'notice to all miinicipah.ties involved The two members so selected shall �eiv'e' a copy of the 5 select a third member.,If they cannot agree on a third member within 30,days after the ' , ast member was appointed, then the chief justice of the supreme,court shall'appoint )f made available to ;:!,%1:-,,,,,:,:,::, �_ , an `Within 180'days h.e third member upon apphcatgon of',the commissioner after five days' notice to the st two members. The;.t ee so selected and appointed shall serve,,as a opt a layout plan. A * ` lghway'appeal board and a,such board,they shall choose a chair from among their micipality or;agency : g s ; g ,;i1erpbers and they shall have such duties and exercise such powers as are hereinafter the reasons'-for-any P er the receipt of the � provided Members of the board shall not be employees or consultants of any counties, s ,*,A the state of;Minnesota,or any of the municipalities involved in the proposal. to the eon iitssiOrier � uch ii' roval;and `� _ `� .„1, :History: c 312 s 5;,19$6 c,444.: f no way such ,„x f . i61.17G POWERS OF APPEAL BOARD. 'opo 'area `shall, E4,331--. � =tt . ., 1 council in order'to .4$ E Subdivision 1. Hearing.The;highway appeal board shall, on notice to the commis- Ccleral requirements. 1A:411040,sioner and,the affected municipalities, hold,an appeal hearing on the entire highway assistance i it -deems 1-_ layout plan as proposed by the commissioner, and alternates:consistent with minimum ing`at`'an'alternative V ;federal,requirements that,are presented by the disapproving municipalities. The board ! .. ° , 161.176 'TRUNK HIGHWAY SYSTEM 96 97 Shall take into consideration all,aspects of the proposal including highway' design, chair:ofthe board. economic development,aesthetics urban and rural planning,agriculture;transportation ,: approved,by the b planning, and all other factors concerning highways. After considering all the''evide nce '.. receipt of such.plat in the record, the"appeal board'shall issue an order approving the commissioner's .' advertisement for.e proposed highway layout plan or ane of the alternatives. The -appeal board shall be approved by the be limited in its ruling to any previously submitted layout plan of the commissioner or an requests the, establi alternate presented by the community in response to-the commissioner. A copy of the " does not.issue its o: order and a memorandum setting'forth the reasons'therefor shall be filed-with the ; for construction bid secretary of state, and shall be mailed to the commissioner and each,municipality or ' - History:'1969 c agency'entitled to receive notice,of the'layout hearing:If-the cost is not substantially'in r excess of the programmed estimates'for'projects included in the commissioner's current construction program the commissioner shall construct'the plan approved by the board in accordance with the original program schedule.' - - ' ` rte' " 161.18 MS 1957{R Subd 2:'Investigatory powers.! The chair of the board, or any member thereof, shall.`have the power to subpoena witnesses, to administer oaths, and to compel the IV 161.18 P O EAR production,of books;records, and other evidence.`The rules of evidence and procedure When any roar for the triar of civil Matters-shall apply,but such rules may be modified by the board over by the state as when it is deemed necessary All evidence, inchiding;`records and documents in the portion thereof, wi possession of the board of which it desires to avail.itself, shall be offered and made a �, titles, easements„al part of the record in the proceeding,and no other factual information or evidence shall y the political;subdivi be considered in the determination of *he matter. Documentary evidence may,be talken over by the st received in the form,of copies or e c ts, or by incorporation.by reference The board '._ ' History:4959 c shall cause a record of all proceedings before it to be made and filed with the chair of ` . the board. Copies thereof shall,be made available upon such.ternis and conditions,.as ?•_1.-':•' 161.19 MS-190;[f2 the board shall prescribe. _: , 161.19;CERTAIN i Subd. 3. Compensation; reimbursement of expenses.,;Members- of the highway appeal board shall receive per diem compensation in the amount of$100 for the time Upon: the:writ 411 spent in disposing of matters presented to the board. Board!members shal be f 3 court, the auditor-c reimbursed for all reasonable expenses incurred by them in the performance of their city shall furnish a duties including all costs incurred in.connection with any hearing. establishment of at Subd. 4. Expenses,of parties. Each party to the.appeal shall submit to the appeal x' ; been or May be tai ' shall be ed in,the board an; itemized list;of the expenses incurred in•preparing its layout plan and f.., ; ; presenting pp ,appeal may p any, the existence of the resentin the appeal. The a cal board ma determine what portion,--if an , of a . . municipality's expenses incurred:for the services and,disbursements of persons not 4 from the trunk high regularly employed by "the municipality will be reimbursed from the'trunk. highway y, . History:1959 c fund.. . ,a• - . ;; History:1969 c'312 s-6;'1986 c 444 ' . 16L20 GENERAL` Subdivision 1. 161.177 CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. ~` provisions of antic] Not'less than 120 days'before the date specified'by the commissioner for the Subd. 2.Acqui; receipt of construction bids for the construction Or improvement of any state trunk railroads, contracts highway within any mumcipality,'the commissioner shall submit to the governing body , eminent domain pi of each municipality or agency entitled to receive a copy of'the layout plan therefor commissioner deer under, section 161.174?,a copy of as complete a set of construction plans.as is possible 3:-.J:5,.._-,' constr 1ctmg, mama which will be issued to prospective bidders. All Such plans shall be in accordance with ational vehicle lane the highway construction:or improvement layout plan" as approved under' section "' highway system, to 161:174,'or'section'161.176: If the construction plans are not in accordance with the for the constructia layout plan as approved, the governing,body'of any'municipality or agency entitled to 1 buildings, or rent oa receive notice of the hearing under section 1'61.174,within 60 days after the receipt-of i necessary for the st such construction plans, may request the establishment of a highway appeal-board as or necessary for e provided in section 161.175, and the highway appeal board shall apprgve,the plans examinations; to-m following the procedures outlined in that section, except that action and conzmenf is ° ; acquire by purchase limited to changes from or additions to the layout.Changes in design capacity required s buildings::or;structt to'accommodate increased-=traffic forecasts shall not be considered deviations-.from the - reconstructing and layout. A copy of any plans prepared to affect•-any highway construction or'improve- highest responsible 0 went plan previously approved by the highway appeal board,`shall also be sent to the ', h reestablishment,by St. Croix River Crossing Project: Updated Schedule February 24,2005 Scoping Phase: Sept 2003 Preparation of Scoping Document/Draft Amended Scoping Decision Document Nov 10,2003 Publication in EQB Monitor(submission of Notice on Nov 3) Dec 2&3,2003 Public Scoping Meetings—Wisconsin and Minnesota Dec 10, 2003 30-day comment period ends Dec 2003 -Mar 2004 Preparation of Final Amended Scoping Decision Document(FASDD) March 29,2004 Publication of FASDD(submit to EQB on March 22) Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement(SDEIS)Phase: Jan—June 2004 Evaluation of alternatives/Preliminary Design/Preparation of SDEIS June 15 &21,2004 Public Informational Meetings—Wisconsin and Minnesota June—Aug 2004 Review by Mn/DOT/WisDOT!FHWA;Revisions Aug 16,2004 Publication(submit to EQB on Aug 9) Sept 21 &22,2004 SDEIS Public Hearings—Minnesota and Wisconsin Oct 6,2004 45-day comment period ends(required by Section 4(f)) Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement(SFEIS)Phase: Nov 2004=March 2005 Finalize Minnesota Highway 36 layout Nov 2004 -April 2005 Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement(MOA) Nov 2004-April 2005 Response to SDEIS Comments!Preparation of SFEIS/Review by DOTs!FHWA Dec 2004 St. Croix Transit/Growth Workshop January-March 2005 National Park Service Section 7a Evaluation April-October 2005 Visual Quality Planning Process and Manual(VQPP&M)Development April-June 2005 Cooperating Agency SFEIS Review;Revisions • July 2005 Publication of SFEIS August 2005 30-day comment period ends September 2005 Preparation of Record of Decision October 2005 Publication of Record of Decision October 2005 Municipal Consent June 2005 Funding Commitment 2005-2006 Final Design 2005-2007 Obtain Federal/State Regulatory Permits 2005-2007 Right-of-Way Acquisition 2007-2011 Construction 2011 Project Complete and Open to Traffic St. Croix Crossing Stakeholder Problem-Solving Process—Stakeholder Meeting Schedule • #01 -June 10,2003 • #10-May 4,2004 • #02-June 30,2003 • #11 -June 22,2004 • #03 -July 22,2003 • #12 -July 27,2004 • #04-September,23,2003 • #13 -October 26,2004 • #05-October 28,2003 • #14-October 27,2004 • #06-November 25,2003 • #15 -January 18,2005 • • #07-January 6,2004 • #16—May 24,2005 (tentative) • #08-January 27,2004 • #17—3rd Quarter 2005 • #09-February 24,2004 • #18—4t Quarter 2005 Project Website: http://www.dot.state.mn.us!metro/projects/stcroix/index.html r St. Croix River Crossing Project Phil's Tara Hideaway— Mitigation Meeting Monday, February 14, 2005 8:30 — 10:30 MN DOT Oakdale Offices 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, MN Agenda 1. Design Revision for additional lot - revised lot location/configuration - connection to restaurant property - utility issues - drainage - improvements to existing lot 2. Right of Way issues - Constraints to Mn/DOT involvement - Lease agreement between Xcel and City of Oak Park Heights • 3. Construction - DOT to provide funds to City for construction - Timing should be concurrent with construction of south frontage road 4. Next Steps 5. Adjourn • ,e 1 Minnesota'Department of Transportation a (Or To. 1° Metropolitan Division Waters Edge • 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 January 31, 2005 Eric Johnson City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Johnson: TAG's Refinement of the Partnership Study's Concept"F": During the joint effort to refine Concept"F"as shown in the Partnership Study, R/W impacts, access management,traffic operations, and development/redevelopment potential for the remaining properties were considered. • Attached is the Chart entitled"St. Croix River Crossing—Buttonhook Area- Concept and Preliminary Design Comparison", along with it's Figures. These show the potential impacts of Concept"F", if the original layout as proposed in the Partnership Study were to be used. (This chart was developed and is contained in the"TH 36 Partnership Study —Concept"F"Refinement—Technical Advisory Group (TAG)report dated August 2004.) The design progression of the refinement of Concept"F"began as Figure 1 and 1A- Original Concept"F",as shown conceptually in the Partnership Study. Issues associated with this concept at Osgood are, a) design can not handle current 2030 projected traffic volumes,b) the buttonhook intersection is too close to Osgood due to turn lane lengths, c)most of the remaining parcels would only be right in/right out access, d) a longer Osgood bridge is required—causing TH 36 to be lower and a higher bridge cost, e) insufficient ramp length to make the ramp profiles work, f) steep grade on the local street up to the remaining businesses, g) does not line up with 62' Street and negatively affects traffic operations by increasing turning movements between the Government Center and the buttonhook intersection,h)provides a full access point at Walgreens. Also at WashingtonlNorell, a)design can not handle current 2030 projected traffic volumes,b) results in impacts to the Applebee's parking lot, c) Gardy's and Jerry's would not have access, d)buttonhook intersection is too close to Norell to get the needed turn lane lengths. Also,the R/W acquisitions on this concept were estimated as shown on • the chart. An equal opportunity employer Page Two • Figure 2 and 2A—Preliminary Design of Concept"F". Concept"F"was designed to the next level of detail, a preliminary design, considering the issues already known about the Concept. At Osgood, left turn lane lengths were lengthened to improve the traffic operations along the frontage road and Osgood. In doing this, the R/W acquisitions increased along with the following remaining issues: a)design can not handle current 2030 projected traffic volumes,b)most of the remaining parcels would only be right in/right out access, c) a longer Osgood bridge is required—causing TH 36 to be lower and a higher bridge cost, d) does not line up with 62 nd Street and negatively affects traffic operations by increasing turning movements between the Government Center and the buttonhook intersection, e)provides a full access point at Walgreens. Also at Washington/Norell,the turn lane needs and operational concerns at the South Frontage Road connection, the access to parcels, redevelopment potential, and existing overhead power line towers were factors in refining the concept into the preliminary design for this area. Issues that remained though were: a) design can not handle current 2030 projected traffic volumes,b)the left turn lane into Wal-Mart is very short, c)the buttonhook intersection does not line up with the proposed Oakgreen Village entrance, and d)the buttonhook location does not leave a very large developable parcel to the east of Applebees. Also, the R/W impacts were increased with this preliminary design as shown in the chart. • Then additional refinement of the north frontage road and Osgood occurred. (North Frontage Road Option 1 shown in Figure 3). This concept considered what issues there were in this area with the original concept and what was still remaining from the preliminary design in this area and proposed a connection of the north frontage road at 61St Street and Osgood. The issues that still remained were: a) design can not handle current 2030 projected traffic volumes,b) the north frontage road connects directly into Oxboro Ave improving traffic operations by reducing the turning movements between the Government Center and the bottonhook intersection, c)impacts the Salem Church, d) undesirable ramp alignment on the exit and entrance buttonhook ramps, e) total parking stalls removed from First Presbyterian Church is approximately 50 stalls, f) one full access point is provided to the remaining parcels, and g) full access is not provided at the Walgreen's entrance. Also,the R/W impacts were reduced from that of the preliminary design as shown in the chart. Then another additional refinement of the north frontage road and Osgood occurred. (North Frontage Road Option 2 shown in Figure 4). This concept considered what issues there were in this area with the original concept,what was still remaining from the preliminary design and the additional refinement in this area, and proposed a connection on the north frontage road at 62nd Street and Osgood. Operationally, this option would perform adequately by handling the current projected 2030 traffic volumes. But the issues that remained were: a) a longer Osgood bridge is required—causing TH 36 to be lower and a higher bridge cost,b)the north frontage road connects directly to 62nd Street 1111 improving traffic operations by reducing the turning movements between the li ♦ T Page Three Government Center and the buttonhook intersection, c)now affects Salem and Fairview cemetery, d)provides a full access point at Walgreens, e)one full access point is provided to the remaining parcels across from Walgreens, and f)total parking stalls removed from First Presbyterian Church is 2-4 stalls. Also,the R/W impacts were increased compared to Option 1 as shown in the chart. The design progression then involved considering what issues there were with the Concept, the preliminary design, Option 1, and the Option 2 so that the current design was produced. The area around Osgood was refined so that development/redevelopment potential for the remaining properties, traffic operations,R/W impacts and access management concerns were considered. This design connected the North Frontage Road to Osgood at 62nd Street. Figure 5 shows this design that can: a)handle the current projected 2030 traffic volumes,b)provides two full access points to the remaining parcels, c)improves traffic operations by reducing the turning movements between the Government Center and the buttonhook intersection, d) does affect the Salem and Fairview cemetery, e)removes 2-4 parking stalls from the First Presbyterian Church, and f)provides a full access point at the Walgreen's entrance. The area around Washington/Norell was also refined considering the issues developed to date. The current design shown in Figure 5A can: a)handle the current projected 2030 • traffic volumes,b)the buttonhook intersections lines up with the proposed Oakgreen Village entrance, and c) a large developable parcel, with good access, to the east of Applebees is provided. Also, the R/W impacts of the current design were less than the preliminary design and that of Option 2 and are shown in the chart. In summary, Concept"F"from the Partnership Study was at a level of detail that was very general in nature. The preliminary design provided the next level of detail and did show that a greater level of impact was to be incurred than was originally anticipated with Concept"F" from the Partnership Study. Through the TAG's refinement of Concept"F"into the current design, issues and concerns were brought out that were then further refined again and again. But throughout the additional refinement of Concept"F", the issues were balanced and impacts minimized to the extent possible. If you have any additional questions about this information,please contact Todd Clarkowski or myself at 651-582-1169. • r s : , Page Four • Sincerely, Arnebeck Area Manager,Mn/DOT Attachments: St. Croix River Crossing—Buttonhook Area- Concept and Preliminary Design Comparison Chart, with Figures 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 3,4,5, 5A, 6A, 7 dated 3/8/04 Cc: Larry Hanson, Stillwater City Administrator Don Theisen, Washington County Engineer Todd Clarkowski,Mn/DOT Alana Getty,Mn/DOT • • • 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 January 18,2005 Mr.Rick Arnebeck Minnesota Dept.of Transportation—Metro Division Water's Edge Building 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE:STH 36 Intersection Layouts. Dear Rick, The City is in the process of reviewing your most recent correspondence of January 6t°,2005.In preparation for our potential response,important questions have arisen for which the City needs does need some guidance. 1. The current layout of Concept F bears practically little resemblance to the layout as crafted/presented as the result of the Partnership Study.Please explain,in writing,how and • why the current Concept F for the STH 36 layout has evolved from the initial presentation to the City.It is understood that MnDOT did prepare Summary Report—Aug 2004'on the TAG Process,but a shorter summary would be beneficial. 2. Please concisely explain the need for the changes in these layouts.Specifically,please include a discussion on the need for the significant changes at the NW corner of Osgood and STH 36, the expansion of the southerly pullback frontage roads and the shifting of the southern frontage road at Oakgreen/Greeley more southwardly. Once we receive this info ..sr, the City will be in a better position to further discuss alternatives. 'c Jo t.o' City I'strator Cc: City Council Members Mark Vierling City Attorney See City of Oak Park Height's Oct 14*,2004 letter to Andrew Eller,MnDOT regarding the City's • position on the Summary Report.—Attached rillik 1 3 0 virst344,11 A MO.;.i po n 9 11 fgj a 13 ti p li II g,,, ,.,. .3‘.0.7 ,,,,o, ,,,,,,',. , ,,;;*.II/SIT.',. .;k(4440,1t, :, ',,,,4*44t Ate,.,,,,VY,44°4 .4i;. li m 6 ! �' 33,wx;,x x.. ,, ;n �, neat. ,'' 2 ,' '°P''FS' mt �• m. p 5 IIiIIIIIllII11!'' ! tt! 1:11110 II G I II ii +' 1r,Ax,i rs " '',,' ¢ t.. 3 ra e d " 59k4 m . ` ate � y ine � ' - a-' ' s f , . ams i y , , , , r r « € l.., ,, 1,,I];rA Lao:i m i 99 2 P. N Oat E ul .1 ? • O'er liiilillllili11111h1kdHh1114b11 a L1/1... 4 A sr � , ,. .rte .. . I E � m c zp m . E o E • i E. !4, _ Z ` c m E E °g 8 Q Y m o c v ° E'.- w O m p p m o c . o E a bg ° E g c $p • , o 1- . cc 12 0 €,sem .,sp � m w. enw-a,�s+se5wmronN � sA A A. _`x y ? ; i�"t x- rarrn �1 .* f ,11,, .=44 ya tt{{I Pt , 1 Y �° Z g i Ip t �w_R x e"� s, h"r e 1 �� . F A c, $,'R x C) ,I I��' .R a r is r aa. ,g f t Y• t t.1 IA A ,° `gyp 4 D. r t �� `" m mcn a w ro.-- ao n1 4j1 �i R vc>o ov��n—Fa-AO + Cl) ',, I 1., i OO<NN N(o —-&70m(Dil 3 1 ( - —lO oi,m3— 0043 O Zii o_34-3„..,-h �aDOOC3 O A �' � �1 (D3—o —+0T+ + �c co u Y v,3o+0o0�+ ++n C `i ! p+(7n-000-0071707 CD ,, � � _ - _ -h C�Q 7 0+0 a0+0 7 0 7 C . �. Si C c)C 0 0 —O 1—O O 0 NA 1 ,,m.,1 1 _._. r°° "^„e v a a. 0 7'O-F.?,0 O O 0—7' a 'A';£'}. i i � ' a ' 010 O T l Q(D 70 r 2A L 000°£0—0 f-10)3(7,(b0./A �, �a, A - a a ]._ ' 030+-030.• 331- . fi :-'.I 4„� � I i ,,.' h.' 0 O.(p 7 0 3 a( +(0 0 q +7Q,0+0 '0300 a k -. O(D 7 7'0 0• —1 d 11 +Q(A+— O 01 r 7 Q C -4-0(01 0 7 0 i�r. 7+0 0 0 —+ 3 0 _R �R`'?� .5 A? i I R . 503+�+70. C O-W 2 i. i �€ '.; ! y' ti� f�mao0m o o— R \ r t 5• �` 0 7 3 +1 O 0 3 f0n 0 .i R a ++ {4'"a R '� '4 ` Y .t,a$ „0, 4 40+7073OC K 0O i �c le. b�c'. t'.,;4, �t'alt''' ' ✓ a. 70+anmvmN "'{o 3f� t1 ,a. 4^` 1 IE ' (D(7ia 0+7'0•— m O 0 ` 3 h� 1 ++00-h 0 ��degp 1 7 r H ' a Y, 4 707fn 0.0 + ' a n �.m. 1 m 0+(nx•n O ,' � i-e ! } ._ fD C ( f 7 V, - a ;n 4,0 m '� Y ds, a, ,- Y tea ^ -h 0 0 I -4 e� L dx a It O.•, ' y^p r a4 i �1, III .. 1!1'1 --.— _y 1.11 . 08GOOD ..„,..,,,,,,,-.:4. I :2 Va - `'y ' �"''',A,1 1 A ' .- ?' i ,-,.:1'---1,-.,,i,,-51„, "� 7 t 1� a CL � � a 1,-`', �` cno ct o C #” ' I ICI m W 4 :qj ' OXBORA VE. x €'5 a cs.a ,7C e",. -.--,,,- am"i �..- *�� .af ��� .r 7rrn x77777 rmanrq r ,,:-..,,,,i`..: 1 .,,,,*„.---- ,lo Ji:C,,,,,,,1*-''-4*,:"-!--„.1 ta '' , 1 - - ,17-4-*.:3,.,46:-,,,:,,v,,,,,,,,,,,,,,47.*,,..' pp ' ' ", i y %, i 18 '19ilt JJI i t;'-- " a 10 J q A , ;$ ',1 PRELIMINARY ' , 1 v ._,'1;.•,- . -, Y 41 3/8/2004 $ +;t '''.1.7.1 .,,„; -:,:-;7!4 -7-('', — sir -----;,-4-4 = - , .550. fi �." }°r . ,i c ` ,,3 - ,-_„ ' r Buttonhook Issues ,, 1. Design can not handle current (2030) protected traffic volumes. I 2. Results In Impacts to the Applebees parking lot. 3. Gardy's and Jerry's would not have access. 4. Buttonhook intersection is too close to Norell Avenue to get the needed turn lane lengths. I; g 4 : ORIGINAL CONCEPT(CONCEPT F)-PARTNERSHIP STUDY 2003 St.Croix River Crossing Project 4686 �4,1 n" Y `"w Ypi 9 a 7. � o ® u <, A s F o 1,...,t,„ z �t .}5 § 3'1 J }t y :- �', . V ,r....rb is y `�:.^ X 5 #'''' .- i 0 'per, 5 t Ili 1 y3 +c . 4P4., x, ii �, *"w h tA' . 'I •� - / y a Ul A W ,._ 0 a is 1���� i ( kM 11��� «�� • ; <0 0 0 2 J.(7' O m O I O<mm — -(D(0 7 lf. ;; M <m 7(fl WO +-. O 7— O 0 5 I. a7+7 '01007 O G cnmo+o-�+ n —m(n C m C w_cToo 3-3 co -I- 3�� i�7 cmZm—o �o m ��, —7 ooam+ m �€"�* a, m24m°"oos 1 , 'Ji i 1 n O 7F Z(n77 Q�I IMNNY""" 1 , _ ,1 ' .a- r 4 OOm O—N—a nJ{; j•p•� � I i "'� 4a ' m70+7 C". 7 A14 i I t� (OD) (n 70.,0 10m qei,. I `y�J -°. <, 'd,. aI 'E _ ,r• � O+7 Qi0m OO w ' OC 11' ' ; g � ���� ,� �,[ .I �� w : om+aim o._ ,1 I •,.I "�}t ir'•44. # 1 �'l9 1 7 Q C 7 -al`, I � +7+m1] (A e W 0+ Z 7 C s Hc�� :.. ��� i ■ �`. 7�mU7 ON ''''14/ i f 70�+Za CO '� f, �` m0000 a0 . y: 1 FFP",.r.-0,---- !II!!' l ii, A.4- Orl ,.., —i cr, (�,/ 1 7 , -T m+IC)(0(n Y'p '. Y•VV p 4'y.- +' m(7n O+ 7 m O i a` Y 1E I ylr, `S 30 m K I w a f P SI ri �' - 7 m 0 r � 3. •t t,. d� fit, r 1 � ( I _ t " �r m mo n•i i �4 % o FY ` 4w ,,,,,,,.•::„ N O• s < + � '� I �^ n( �� oh m ks" It® ..���a� � Y?�amer. sfSl aCi,g a;tt a`-.r1: 8 uav ..— _ vz ,ns va i• IEE �,n�flmn mmn ■ f) , ,I U�e9 D AVE !T. ‘.14."'#;.‘Ed .� bit s 1.1 I U$G00 . 1 11 91 ° . h I 4' A- i, ' i , ' cn 0.....„ 1° - 4 I�3 F „'-.5 -,,) ” a'* F 3 �( 'a "' � ,° �i S v t o F r �m e I s°� ' a y RO AVE.+ ORBO m a 1 ,, , 1, , ••,,,f i',,, t-,,tw , ,,. .—! , ,..,.,, --------'"' , "" r74:, ,ifilir'i'l -1:4*:,,111:k,wotiql.. . ',Ipt: 411111 „\on,j......"'''''"''',,, 1, '','''';'''''''7;,,,.1'.'*Aj'FiA.:4'.: 1 k-.. .';'''k44,,:' :",,•,,::.' Elks!! ,.-4,,, / ,.,,'''-',r,,..,_:-,-,. .. ,-':,',„41* ' , l'.4*-. , , --4(-.*,7"-- ______ - _____Nui-iillS11 / k ',,,"7"-"-7'"' ` 1 ' '' - -,''''""41.....:(it-t- - p fce- ;aa ''''' '1 * -----i k .4 ,i,,,.44 I 44- ., :P..,. -, ,,J, li, ,,,,N.,• ?, .'_ . , -0 2 .„-u „44''''. A-II . • • - _, . ,(..„ , ri, 1 • , .I, , 1.1 , ,.J-4-.-,(.7 s 4 _ I ,„ - '!'■ I. , l'i it it' t a ' - K 1 . ' ■ ' ,on -;cDo`n .0: ,, 0 2 1 !' dr 1 -,5; -< a)CDU cCD 7 „„ "4° 0 i ji I ^* , ' '7 I- lil -< :;.'''',..-il I fill, *"m,t111•c,T, rrt 9, 0 , 1 -. ' , .,.- 11 0<0 7-F-' 0 ,' , ,:_a• a") 0 0 .t7) C C ' I 4 ".4 « ' 1 "., 'L . --'''', —7-7 3--N 7" z Fg_8 8-8'i).D 9 2 - . '1 / ,t-Eti*,1,444,4' -_-- -4 ',,,`■ .g Cl `1 . I 1 ' 11:;I:i!= rn 9 a; . , -1 ;:.,. ;:rii,""i';` '1'.'' - ■Ilt c(D 0 -}CD 0 , '1 ■11 -CT-1:2',_i.2(11 3g, i',?.,, 1...,f,,..---,.••47- LI" lipr',1-6,Lcili.(7_,)-(D' ' T-1,617v,..,-). ,,:' ,,,4 I ,`v-- 2-'`. , 1,1-4 z % sil=-cD‘ -- c.,.,',‘•,,.,„.1)'-, '..., 1 i,, '1'..i'i.,,,i7 :•.. am 3 0 .--- 4411") '. ., - , --', '...,,-, , k;k4o, ILI ' 1 ,-+2, ',,,-',',-,, ,,, ,ii, YC'k ' ' I. '' '' ' ' I ' ''' i'‘''1*- " ' il ■.1 ■, a,..'1,.,ttr,-,,‘ _!, ,. ' r - , -1 1,,-,,i-, ilo,r,:,-1 I. ,-1. -. , .":!,,,,' -, ' .„.4'...1 - , :,-..1 i;..-.. ''..„'"..;;''' - ' :: :°:'.: r;.: '''''• "'4ft-r--. ` ''''„ i-LI-4M -r, : (D 411i D C--n- '1 1;4 --,..3..,,,. .,,,1,t-,..,„ ,: L-4;.-7--r,,,,I. .,,,._ 4,4 ,,61,,, •. .,, ,,„-,,,,,„,,:'.,,7 ' `2,)2(°2',■)2- lit 1-,..''',.- t;":.;...-",,ttliS.111/4'71;11nliffill ,,- "' ,..: -Td:,!°-."t''''',, 1— ,.., 2,(1 4-::.:<,?2F 1*, 50;!?. ‘.:..,„t,,a,P :-ili-:7,'-' ' ''''''''''''=`'''f-r; ,.. vz, >0 9 W,ga ,t ,tir.4,:::1E.,14,,,,,N6,,' - --8.1.(5°5 9i' I-7$*Nki'l,..1i'..:f„.', ',?:'''''''''7, . ',14°;;;1-.„1;1';,:t14„. .--,;:<' :f.i ,,;',0 11,'', ;.44;'44-:' ,,';':;`.;.:".;;',,-, . _,, , ,*, ----1,2-44,'..,1 „ 4-4iNfit.„,, „,,.41,04for . - ,d,,,-,,,1- ',, ,Fi2,14,11'410/ ligry.1/4-' ,i --,„;;;;—....,, ' (n , i,,- 4:1-""""74;V. , '- ""qt3.,;,'',i4,1,1';"S1 '''0 i •,--\,,_,,,,,,.‘''',?:71,Z.,_:'"1..e...,.,,......-i` . • 'i;, .'', 1.' r-'''.'., ''''',' ':.:--,,,,,---,---7,94.,,r. yr i t!:”- iv,+.:,,5i' '1:',4'-'-„ , ''''''.'i „ '''''' '.111;',4,1 ' '.;•,.:''''''''''''''-';'-f ,*, i I / / / '''''''* P ' '4',',"':,'",'",..„.f,"0'.,'7'.' ,,,,,,h.r,' ';''''''''' • ,4.''liqf' • ::^ - -- .,,,,,,,,,.-,,,,,-..„..,, %,:''''''1....,':: yil, i'' -''1/4',''::,:f•-•"- .1.,..„,„4.2„'''':,'''''''..,:///,",:.-.','„,x,,,i,, , 1/4. - - aL§ .! - t ,:f171';',41,V4^4?, _ 4 At A11 4,-71,,,„.4:'(',.„,1,,,, f '17e , - :-, .,- ' t 1, , ;,;:-.4,,, . 41 /1,..;:ri'4,— ,"-----t l'''' '4' ' "te.'1 ".• , l'alltittik,C,I''''AL7-- -.‘, 1,' -,. '' _- ,- 4-• 1117,,,„,4,,,,i i , f, ,, 1 '.:,-''''''' \ i,' .,.,. ' -." .• ' - .,," '', l'Ir",,,,,,-r,','",1,-,_, .,, ,., !sit 0.1•',1t74 '' ' : --n,'" .111 r„,-,. 1 , ,,;„,),',',-, 7.Thd.,:i,., ,,' ,,„ , ,,,,,„,,,,s,, f , .; i, w 402,144... :'''''', 11,k - " ( ' ,.''' :' ' . ,‘ i , ,"."\,".:" ' '',' 4;1- 1 . , 1711' 1, ' ;.. ',i, `,l', ..':.;*14'4. \■\ ''' ' l'' , . ; 1 ,' t" 41til ^II, ,1 „ 1,,i.,, .. • -, '' .1,i, ''' 4,:,',..,,` \..''''',,,,",,,,,.''••,';'''Z, .,' ,',f ,,,' . ' '''',1\,X''',,,,,, .''' ',7';',,,:': ''',,\ki,■,,-,,'„,,,:' .:,--T,:-' -'' ''' L' „ ' ., P ,,, , r• 1 . .., ,x, ‘■, ' '-' ''-;'''' ,■ f ,1 1:-.1.`1 1111 , . :„ ,1, kf, ,....,. I ,,,-- ,, ,. , o , y,r1c -,..,,,, . ir ,i L = -:4‘itt , ,',V!,'1--4,,,,,,-"' ' '1111 ° ,+' : Of . I., -° 1.1.),,iRr.',' = ' d ''' , 0 r7.'''-'7:----: -..,:.'lit'''-'• , '' i r ;‘ .4 '' Z. - ;=:;': „ . ,‘, ..:'1, '''■';,1'''''I'''.- .. ;;I:,* , 0,* ''. ''' , ,I . '10' '' • ' ' L, . .... x. ,- ___ 2,a-ai a,„w,.„v,�,,,...s^amdnearw�»vM-v�w�.�omazecamw r�wS ,e,e gµ' 9�, t� ._.y. }� '�` .p .s "'AVE. i '7s • k q t t F n, fir' F z p y b4 ? a - W 1 0 9 1_" A LI a , 1 , ' r i'� iii, • C" ., 0 D ; w G ..'. 4 d t /r • a tE s 33 '.M wl. q y, i I I ;. ,...,r.,• +�'F'`9` mil. ,t 0 � .' en V 2 s2 t ,kt pp t �' �� i � # �I 01 O7 A W N.-� �54 5 -.SCI-+Q--10 + ' .�f �fI TIOCn0�0m37m o I t� �e,•' �e I —m0—__I-0<L-,,fn O m O 70 O ; o, ^ry -ham 0 O �� c I I OC�'O�(n7— T• 1 OOO 7,_i H "' 'h vim,. \. m —T. (n Z '. � �a s .. �oo0m mm I'S7 C ----,4, ®�� lam '� ?� ....;',.5..� - o+o- tnc�000 m -,., a ., O0mfn3OO + m �♦. ®'� VI 1 r au—o mD N p � i rn +o o--c»o a- ril I wip. ,- ,, zI r a . ++ ��m+moo t ''.`��' a5 1yy1 —0-071m-00• A y I m'O• m i 7,,m ."' - F r`t— la,-.1 O.O m fA--7 Q O 7 3 fn N > >i +m 3 m G 0 O + —x 7c 1 � �o i— mom 1-44t , " - A _ v l 1 ,Ir 7 R° C 10—O 4astioi I .r tril - m m 1m ++`m € 9g # I x A_1 ,' "'r it ' -r2 ! m C) m 7 0 C-+0 Y ici tn. m d 4�}p(, p% 3m fn+ 310+ to '`.� "k" a1^K�a' 1'i N 0 O O 3 OO. x .w1R �.- -a>n as " 7m m— +7 0<x r -41)1 'I' 1P+7,1 1\ I x a ' fra� i • As �� S +Oo k; '� I t'',,,: �b ", "mil" a _ Y m 4 7 O m m(D O I s �i ', •`� - m 7 O+C O I 3 i5a w k.......,„,„#' 1 — OO +mm -`2- ,� ' r' . .i �. .,. • 7T O 3 �..Y. a t !1# } p y r o : "# - `' ` 7' } f tl di.�„„,�11 vet' Y "i. '` 3 4 ;.. f : I d#My�” --'34 II .-x AF H M �. C�24El ` 9GOOD 1 � w� i i :'if51 � � �i� r 1� �� ia n w ; I s x, Z 1 S 42 i QS ``X O pI are A 1 :- -f . , OABORO ' I � ' rn lb D 6 l �msm 6 .. m evm2esa66v+.Maawcammwmms w-0umaqamae6 Z r ova t g i� tti t. 1.- I Z I f ha f n - h ks : o- � sY p ' k 4'�-r ■s -° ° s Z � 14" f �:., � ,; � � mcna w N.- 00 1. °..lf h - --CO O,)DCT--I-DO + Cn0071fi(DB7= CD 0 +1(DO-h+t'm —Cn 7 " NpO <CD£-01D WO— E,, 1 ! - CCCa+(D OOIO t7 O " 'b��, `{fie. i Cn0-fi—(00077+O00 0 f7t ' W' -+� V1+0 7 0 r- Y O T.0 0 0 O 7 0707 Cn `4 a` —7fl,_ O't1Om7 c ' �: C:, —7 O d'3 00 0—o 0 0 ' °k �` fl, (3-4,21.,70.0J to , � t0 _tea! NT �t +0 CD— N. CD [ O 1'O O 7 1 0IO 1 0 m • ,1 ae f11 1 ,rlj —(T-0-307 000-4 CD 1 Ka I� «1/ .. t.,fr Cn717 aC o " Cn+cn<Jmoaol 3 ' ` f `Lii I" f.. �. C ° ..y � - CD -10 Cfl+7 710 1 f 3 a O+�NCn77mN I ♦` '� �' (D 1 (D m C O :ID -0+ U 0 7 C w Y � a+K a1 1 m ILI) ,,m ac, i�� , _ +m aaaao ILL ' ' :I1, 0 7C 11O I 0 11 1 try � !®� �g mlAl,t � i 1 1 m ++ +-.a• w L a h, e at CD O I'xr A'. .0 _ - F ,u Cn CC 7 7 1 O• IO+ »v4 C 1 ,y t CJ OCn 77 1 + 7(D 07N + y�g{a '* py 1 7-F a � *d ��,,,,,f #.e x c a'"e +y u? ` 'x�C���* '� � P : — IO 1 —3 O CD $ I q 00 mCD1 41 tiokAti . '� � , � It I kk c� 1m 1arD ' i t a ra, '� Y, w,, @r+. 4.1,;-,f44`i, C 0 CD 7+ 3 9Y n ■ $s 7 hi wrcr y J� . O ��P R 1 {9 Iz i i, i _ r J F yj R ' .356 " '�,. I� ° et r4'2'' " MI �E' -'� A �-'�;. „••r�, ��;�Ii�° ' i ., e: it ® .,r Zil r:ii, ii --- .n 1 rri,mn f rii 1 (*i ''ga a � \ r : �D 7,-' (1Rf3:' � .:w+.. a Cx h, 1 1 .�' :�a. C . w ,i C A , . '�' .a�d..ahA .5Y'A, 1 i '''''44c: 4*,::""*), 'h mg rye A. i'1' vo =o1� - x 4I u: )4: , ci j,*: Y C i =; s f 01 4464,4�4 I�s em u. »uV°4'.1 c . ♦ ♦,{, \S� (x A. ,t. l OXBOROAVEC a z m a t rtW^o/eNa.Ifi66WmrWNPYrsWJ/...4 /Mi✓-P�-urIX�.O5B61v11[nJwWS may. P +:k A I .1F�,y�,, , i S �, ..3� ' ,.,,.pg�NyW,r'. Y �Nfq. X i 7,�1 1W C 31 y _,..., t:, , ,,z .,,, ,,, ..,ro c 1 ; - , t ' ', e , z . _�,+7„ , . ., ......, � A r *• rck 3ca k+. m a��.`I d "� ”°" Sri �1 3 ? F \ �t c, .I _ vC_to;; ;; al k J �m� cNj��O w a �— + N' t' m0,Ocr0 77 O TO O m"+'I+J7 (CD, -70m -h J m Pi Jr o o ; " �; to � JC mJOm� ��h Y�v 6 r N'-, o f f 3�g F):, , O +77�, ,6. �I ' 7 a a.clm J,,-+ q- � � A to ' +y 1 . ' �`**,'' ''' O OJ Z f - v y f '"+ `a , + 3mO o O,J ■ ae ` 7o C J itti4 ,s., O' rr i -- m O 2;t 'S6` '''''''',Y f e'r` i c+} 'VIII m � g3 i m v f. i � m +J °��- m ir ' ' O 0, i �44 `, 4,a - (_m m C Fa�-" z, i ti �' , 1 O+s 1 a 1 A '�Niker - + I.5.1,•:*A i w J l,s ## •I . ,e. F V k{t Is 4 ; e 0) t,‘ , III y 0 •h y 6G0 D AVE N. (✓5;.R� 00- , 1- I! i4 ? 4 r k :HI �� Fnrmm 4 j •,,■eu e ��s s J l'u.,.9 �., ?9 A ,:4,'„),' 1 ;4:41, .0,, 1 , ,,,co '7 0 co w+ 'A', •of !�"?Ir �r 1 a . r? DX$ORO VE. +CO D v .., i f4;m, L .iwrin. ' .7:;', Mini ' '--'k '''''''.;•.:-.k.',-.:‘,"*..7?1'-.:'-'0-1.: '.'...'-..4,1;)11,-..10,, .11-1=';.,'S' . 1-`..,• "-- log --: ,r-=,.:''''''''' ''.'' _ - :=-__ _ilkilliki! ."'.4 .,:; ,,....4;-..1-, , ,io'lz,''.-i'..-.,-;.,-'..:''1:'..;*!''''''''J ' 4A:''''1.11.16'''''*.'■'''°''..N..,...''' '' : , .... '"' ... ... ....7... . '''''''''''',.' .j.-i.-Z: ' 4,,,;,,,u.0-.,,,,,=-1.4t--- 1,°-ifx;,,:....N ii • '''4•'*I'''',-•-•1%,-..im.."- 41ir ,--- ?'•.'‘ 1='--- .fv„. .,:,:. .... -,,,,,',.: ..,..'..,(.'.013.4Z1.:" 6".,;:.:\ -,---7-'- '''.. q,..t.' '-:.'e,0`'' ' .:'... • ,: ' ,-- - :-In 2 ;Do '414' - 1 - -4,;,,t-i- ;..... A, - IA - • :,r .1.4%. ■ "' ; '''' F; g2 t 1 1, -.'-- .,:-r ,.v),„4 a (D.0 03° 0, ',;„ - / ' 1 or--!, '.' •,g i''''..1. ■A ‘H .00 0 7-,c cd)) D g., -— . . , ,\, . 2 0). --4 ) P -1'0 c)1_. n.<17on or . , : A ---... ~..:-7,,,k, .1, . 6 ii . A ,,,,,,,I rn ,..,. Cl 17 a 0 D - ..] ,,,,.., .. .._ 1'0 0 -c, ;!...', ...! - ._ i, ,..... 2 0 0- n,x D 0 .1 - „,.,..i ,.., ! , ......V.„:f.T.171',:.*(#,...••••'.•`'•'i°,217,'11 0 3,.,- C... ,- -- i a. . 0 --a 0 l'''' '' ' 1 -,1„),r r '•''}-,'''.■ '''..■ 41: ' I I ' . .-.1 a 0 no.p_i_ 0 0 7 7 g „ .■.A r 1,,,L,' B 1,0 . -•''', 4 'Iv) ' " ,, „... '44t:...'''-'--"."- _, _4-CD j 03 0 - .,„. .t „,\1 -,... . ... g ,11 .--..mkti," • -' - '1, , cl A ai<_F c 'i."..." -, ,-, ... ''' EM.I! . (r11,44 ''''; Ka o<--7 5-',,, ,.'••?A-„,.•:•:,'„i•••',,•,,W'',-,„;,',-,.5,•;'?"':•;i,'•---; . "''''''I i Alit, •,,,,---1' -•,...b„..,, 1 ",!.;., . 0 a) 0 ., ., ,,,,,y,;.„ -,-,-. ,-- ,...,-.17...!! . ....1,--i ..,. --. a,30 3 7 ,..- ,-,. ' - ....r;, 1...,,,, ,. g.k, ,.....kr, .i• -711 c., .4tio....„4-..4. .-...11... .,-.4.1.-,.:,,,....4...., ..*: ...,---.,,,,,,:,r..-1,' '''', titr.,pr-i-ii,..4T , ,,4,ttm ,r,...,•..,,,I.,,,,,-.7..:..--,,,, .„...4,-,,),',--.:,,,,., f,, ,,I„.4,-,[ ,•'.;i 6;'' ..,•,l'i,: $):-,•,:',,,,'-',;,V;-' , .,5'r1`,:l•(.'-:.'4,,`4, -1,,,,,,,'"'",* I ,_ ,.„ ,R , 0)0 0)io ..4,,.r.,,.,.:.e.,,i* ...,‘,..,;;'..-, -,..lif41:1,. ',..:::0',---...7.:7..?;Lf -.! 'D 2 c° %-. .,. .-- ,',.:',.."-;'.'.''''-'',-.L, 4 -tAt,'.- ,, ..;.4.1is. 9,-0- ,,,,,,.....w . r....,:ev.:,.. i ,,„..r,'.k----,-.: _.,:--- 1 0 0'7 •'4•'55'•''••'•:'''''';'41V/45''',..i.'-'4'",,,•'-•,,K-•%;,,,- .i•-lir•: i.".."..,,-t'i-31",,:',": •-ti"itl,f,f,15 - ,' •,■`," r ,...,'"'L , ‘ f, . — IT 0 ,..r r'' ■'''`'.t.:'.'''n'1'..'.0,''''' ''Ik'''''. triiif A' till''',411 -1 li „ ,,,,,..:`,..,' :-,ri.:7,5,. ,-' fr,.,..kA!.-2‘:'` u 1!„4';',a ,-•,,,,,,,,,,,,,•'' ..`,-"2",r;'•,-,,•4;•,'..-',••,,,,,554-?5*•*I',”.' .4,",-': ;' ,, • '-''-',-;1'.';''.;',•f':',. ,•...,li'•'••;'•',•-i$."...-',i4r';'•••,.y),, ' 'ff,-4.'. ..''';'-'..,'„,...,.,-;,..,-;,`',`•4,t'i,:e--','''''''A I ':'''''',Iiir Z' 2E- N.'4 ii.' 7`:4.',.`'',.' .::,,,..i '':''' 4" (FED ;;'••11e,;'5'±')' „,,,,, li,'',•:,-'-'•':rq':""'"',', -1'5r•-•`•••"),"115,0",,Ay .;,',.•,,,:,?4i,,,,,z,-,,,',,:..---,::,....,;.7.''':,-',. 1::: . 6 a 4' ')4';''''' ''''''.' '';''''''''' '''',4"-'-'1'''.-1"44';-tt9qt;17.1/ iTc---°':,;•':.. ..t,:?'"!....""..,":, -1'',"',-`'',:''.4,',.'''1. 4.: 1 ? , -..,,,,p,,,,,4,,,,...„2..,, -„.--,-,..-4 ,.!-.,.q...,,,,,,,:..:,.-..,„:,,,„-,:.-.N.,,---,i-F,t,310.,,,,,/ ...^:,rt.4•. ,:'.V.::.iS'.''',-f-rA'.';','' ' ' -, (I) -1 '''•t"''''''''''`P'''”' ,'-:-"-''‘,•:,-"":•)--:"•*:"7--' .i.,'f,',,,','Y:,•4',,47:ii,i iV 4/ ,,••-•5',.;,',4,VM,-^,',.,,,,I,4„,...,',••",,,•,,,',.-•,A,,ik,,,c,'-,' '.,,_or . ,( ,. l'-'1- :f." 44'0 t4-."' . .L-t''''''')',.'": ;;;;.".;;',1.','''?'"'-',.i,"?.',.1';,''714. :Prti,1 ' "I'''-':,13',,'LI.A:".•,'-f:' ..4'''': '.- '4:,-,! ,r-- ' 3 ,,,,'",i7,t1,4,17F,4,477.H-i:.i4,itt,;.4.4',-,„,',''''''''',','''''.4'...,: t"..:;.;;.,,•-'4.,..71,.6,1'-', ''..;.tk).:-.;:'Irrit,*-.. •I'il,%,,;"!.•:;.•-i/. ,.,;:- . L -.,,:.- i ' „,,;,ts,f,„,:it,,,,.,......,:.7;,-,..:...,,,:o., :4,,,,,.:, 7-.,■:'!'..,4,..,;,,,,,,,.,,,M,,l/ ,',,,,.,,,3,€,,,47i4',.it$ ,,,,-,,k,,V.,.'4,,,,;;;1'.':,:,::+''''..,-,; r -...,:!,11-.11,-, iii (<,., ,,:i...,,?:11,t,t;-...,, .:,..,.; ...,,_,...,,,;,., „ 17,',i',■'-`,..„-i ,''''''iTP.4!./ l''''''Ir,•:'- '4.NA:7,,iti'l;?[;::',&-'-'''..'''''''''I'--;-.- ', y 71 ' „p4.3,..,,,,-., c ...,.. .. . „. ,,':.4...:.-0,,`,VV:,-.,'''''''''-..'• . '-'-. 1==,..;',-"-,- ''"'''.--„-.r.,''''''.. ,4 i''A,4,rt/,4 1'*'''.. ' '''' t *1 '''b:','. .. .,',' .4,1'' '':' w' '..r,. ,. .:gm,''i,.J..... ''. '...• '*'' :dill ,,••••1„,410; ..1,..1,1„.4•,, ,.. ...11.1. , _ ,....-. .• .. 5--;,,::,: '':: _,,-- 4.- ,'Iril-: ','•'-: •-,! lk.. l .-L,::=:::E : i777:..r.-, •,. • _ , -,, 4'0..,r, Il •-•'. ,..,.,„L";,2-Irta-e,Yt-••"'"""...... ,,.,,,,,-,e------::',--.---•?' - . *.-f",.r, '' •••, r '' ' '. '''.• -"ii`” . -5 °'• . - -.,•=';'`'ir;-,•,.'7F-- "''-.- ''•, ''' , '•-' 5 t • • '•,, 31,"' . , .'pc ..di.,TT :,-,,J,/e..,„i 1111, ,11, 7,,.. ri,;;,,,, .`.• -^-,,,`:,. •',,,,....„-..:,'. -.,•••,, ii, , . ..... • . .. • ,'••• '` • -''''-.;',. \ K :'- 3;l' .i,"i;....'' ' ' ' . -- _'7.-..:Ti:-.-. ._ , -1' '' .. NoPt• ,I,'., „,:,!:' . . ■,11 , ..i,..:,i1,,,.Ai',:.`,' 1 ' '' 1 ' . :1,,:', I''rtle''..IL „''' ,,,..'. 1, '''',,:',....•'r.'.,;,,;,:,1'. il! ' . ,' '' : i 1 1, 4f*.• ';''' '''t .,:7'r'.. - l' L ■'}.,i', 1''' ','I il L'4,.' .Iiit--,'..,'''.•,..- ' ,1 ,., 1 I II!:' • . ' `:,,:, ','.' , , ,?'.....;.,4-.. . r;, `...-.,'.,1,.1:,h4,.,,„1.,L.:.;..,,-.;„...:4-;;',,. i.,,i' ; :,;?4,'..,,- , •.• ' ' '' '' ' '• ,..,4,71,1,.,,, k.„1„ :: '11 ,, -,' . ,. „..,.,:.,opt4e..„.i.t. ,-- ..,,,,,,,,..- ,..,..-: , ,-..... , ,„.... , . . :., .„'4,1 r...4'.: . ,■■ ',A\',■',4'''''.'\t,.,':1 , ,..T. ,. ... !"."'.' .,.:.i.i,. •.- ' , ..',.,': 11::'7f1,. ' ' :# i ,4, L';.,',1:: ',1'' '....'''■ 'Ij ',...44,:;'4.2t:,L , ,,k,:,-,',;,ip-r-L-i','" - :,\,.. . '',,,,,':..,,,,,'''-:' ...,!" ''' lf ,'""...,,,, . ::. ''' ...,,i41.."?.;p$11*;;'•''''''!''''-'','1"''■',''Aatlk''k'''..'t.," '..1-;',..f....„,' :r' ' ' .. .'''., 1' ., " 1 '''.I- V• ti ■' p ■ ' .... ,i,lp ..:,i .,,,,,.,,, ■cir'i - -.. .'r ' .*I"'''''.**.•.;14E'r':'. , 41' '''■ :''''''''.%It. 1 , $14' ' 'V 1 I•= ..A = '' .' ^ ,f , ,., .... ,. c. z z , -.-' -' ,i ''-':'1;'.-2,t- --.,-,• ".--:. '''---t,.:.•';fs"..' • --- ' „.,, . ..,..1,-.. , ,L ,,;-:,,,, . r. .,,....„:,..„ _.,0._. ,,,, ,.:.„...,,, . : i‘,..,..,;:„,. ,,, .,,,,,,‘,„„,„. co , _. ,.-7,:,„ rol •..,.- -- r. 1 1 II t, 1r1"N1 f a.`nw-Iwv-woaw ,yx"1' fm 4 , r Y 7 { ^akpy N• E° ' ja liurtIa . -;),if [i co X1F,1 V1 W [I b scY - 41 211r h{ I f r p►- X v , k 1 f I p rtn,It f I !I 17, I .. � .., T F r y _ o—oc2 N 7 A I! e4T,0!TH;;n al d „wn + s ooN—+gN—N 1—7—c- 3 I 5 ' ! r �1?t - �. rn 40 SD 0 ,,Z 00 Q -QO 7 C—D 7+ 'O 1 '',.r'..,,,,. a i _. r .� .,m y (D(D C+C+ In O3o+m O N , s \, 4.`fix ca n c a D++go+O 7+7m0N m.— 2i / O .'d y O o mc077m+v�a �— �;r's x , • j i .-c Z .0888.1a---,'N7D �; � '% ��nllu �.ni TO0 ▪ T v O 7-,,;; OC 7NO+ . • . celi nu O--N--+O m D 3—m r " . - ._ cl Z a�NOO+NO ooaONmO+ , , ,r ,, , ,O o+O3N— C+ i mm `� xV O10 Nl O 070 (-7 N 0770+0ao `1{1 N I µ \a— 7a t �C —0—c— ' 11\ON 7 F I I �s ( , , 1-+ 3 L Ia j . 1 8-> 3-8. t I I • �: IIi 00-000aD+N O N I f I a+1 N n U+0 C 7 7N II I I_. —O_14_8 <OE .4 1y } 1 l 3 -�- ` r r ' v , CZ ,<7 N N—— NZ + � q + iO N+—(D (I) T i ] I Ill ,- II '•p NNN +O— 7 I a-1• 7+0<70 4 ¢ ��8:-‹ (1)=F •+ ,,,; a , I ono L ,/,..-,-;t 0 - tsO I r 9 E I } °ta' Iti x , . y',� 1 3 O mill' n C M.i f 1I,411 ' , 6 i JIIIIIIIIIII+0 ._4 h I # 4 I 3 d m« I d r _ � i� IIu11111!4� a ^,, h "+�rcM( � �r b m°n x4A f +i ` p 1 {`* . fqv. , a ra C '-•"*"''' r;� x 1�11 1ti IC11111r --• •l sI; , 6 „ h S "a, 4c a $ k.' �. Li 11F, �� I hllil! 'ka I i' j k -4,0 an IID� d �' �a � - t Y,. i r r l E (! 1IIIIIM ,_d � , '.,..4-4,� • , 4 � IIIIIII111,*r r -, ' t � a 1 ,1 k.. 1 3': _ \ � t — r- I Ir ,I -r � , ',t t) Jr 1 al ,E I tuCIi!®,/:IIIIIHIllIIII1I1I1II1WIII1 - '.' n om, , j�... +",1 I x:i�. 1 A �I ? �� ; 1 g y S F „I 11**'J s .. g i�• it r`1 1.-N U`, u U pi( jl 4 ' , l�fi 1 � � , j r �� 1 x I I�, It-. �4 a t te +� ke.{ j P St .L. J?.,..", I 4 i ' I 7 a,% ♦ I� '�` ;ar�� i } ,.1.'`'-`- } II!;i _. x Ja1y , .y I d I• t1 p# �'d � „,ar ,l.i r v., ' 0 'x,,�p v- all, ^ 1' '� �e I p ?•41,%.4t 1 7 e=a � a ; ., 1[L',I ' I� ir b J , ,, 5 , + I tiq, f`� , ^c , t;,-.„w.,y,s.,, .....,9 ,.___,,,-----,,,,,nim --cl- � 1 ?v t r I` � ' gypt! I { E.R I " 4,....y"4 a � s ` 1� ; �1 I k y& 4 k ? 7> { 5 b ', f a ,,F +k„ye F k. I i J :,ra � r 404 r� 4 t ` }" ,‘-.,:-t' I ! N F 1,1 • /,'f.' b 6} WitZ � ' i-,.- 0-: ' ni 1� lei t r �. 1I 9 x IOo W ` . r rx, ;7.,4t.,',`,„'"' I ,r N.=m as le\orofeersWE,86W-euVroplecs..onbuffonse,,,Seaurrotext . . ..— a ,,ii ... ... . „ 0,1 \ 9, ..., , ' / H', \• ;.' ii; / ' -4, r I lil 1 • ,, _ ,0 .... --;' 0 ''.., Iii'ti!, ., ,I, 1,Y, ," ..- •.;''''''.' I I ca, 1,;,- , -tv,:,•-•:_,;, : ;:;‘,,-; '1,1'1:'''-1 1 • .. '.- - I . 0 -- --L -- • \. \;Ii 1 ',- - ! ---,.-• --- ,,,; ..t.': 0 • 0- ,', -- --;'., • '.•, 1 ' ,,,,, - • .. ;:' -,,r• ,1 ...,. to tA • - ---, - - . .0, . . . .- :-• .," ' '' ''',. ' • . . I. I,' - ' ' h:tl ,-.. I 0 .1 ' -1 ------ ':ili ■1" . r.... 11 i, l i i-I •--„11.-:.'' ' . • :',(.11 ' 0,... '.•':'::''": ....,'". "u."6.I '' . ;III'-'' .f t '"'' A.,.: . .,• II;wASRINOTON ( AVE •'1, il III j,: ■:,' 1 T,',, ...I: ■.i' 0ofDIII®o ! ., I : linl -::,' ., H: 11, ',:,',,--;• 11 „ -ii,:iiii ',-,,-;:li i' I ,' •• '-•-•,•-i--.- -Tr;',. if '!" i 5 1 :- ro 7,•_2,._ ;r ' - :111,;"; -Iiii'I' i i•., i g i i I itiiv ,,,I,I'li -' ' - • ;I I Or', '''',', ' 1 4,'Mr....'"•111.1-.'• i7 il -A----:--7'10"------------'-'/ ' d''"19.•:- ,1,11' 11-..'---• '■ '11 t,„1,1- H...Y;-,:-.1 _....0 iii,„ , , . , ,,, r'...,•,-.01z.i, ...i„.--- -... ---, • ,,li,,, • * - ,,''\ rf i' , ,r,,-.,-. . \, ,,pf,,,,,-. 1,1,i,11,I•_:',..;,;-'77-Ir,3„--, t 3: § Vii,,- 1:i • -. •.)i,.•:i - •i•—,i'- .,,. .i;,,, i;Id. •••, . . l• ,, re.ill.i;■- ''''.,l';',Ii'l, ' 1 '"" ‘1 ..". ... • ' :::., ,L:" .;, Iiiiiiii4),L L \!, - . •''i:•.•,f qii1';, • 'i i ' E 73 CO. '' '',.\• -----':-.1, = .--__-____ 'p'•:'. I II i•:_'.'. . , ,.. ----,-,N\18i,'I t ,.--_,•ti!ii■ . - -1f.■ 4,64.,AVM.(C.10..100 A 1\•)a ,,-2- s) c■d .,,•.• ,'''.:1,..;•?..•••,,'Ili •ii:•----'[. •-•••'Lir:' 3 2 1 i':, . . -----.1 r,',-;'-t-; . ,..-Hil ii l'-,-,;--- i; ,-,-„•'- •,.....,-i....,..,-,,*,,,,,,y,.,.1. , ,i", .:1 . 0,.;... ''''. ...'''''.... --:,...;• '..1 '10,-, 1;1.,04.r, -,,,,,::',!.:Tiifir.';?...';n•''- r, '■----.--- ----;-' - ' r,-.„..,,,,,,,,,,,,,..r,,,(,,i-,...,;„,-:■,,1,,{A; 1.:.:ij j..,,,,: ;, ".-1_".':2-.7.'. :-.;_:'"-,.'. "..". il,I:::::. :. • 1' c„;!.,..,.!..,,,,,;‘,.■,u;,ii, \-----:--4t,,,\ - --- ,-:1•-*/ ---; • '‘',, , •,. ./.;,.. i 1 , 4,.-.-•-• i . `. If, 11 7u,1 1 - '''' '-',''i• I - „t•-c-,,;( rr.7,,'d,f,-, ,,,: :,'1,-,i, 'Y, ' : '9. (Lik 4/ I Lili'.''f'1-4 .:'-itit'\,, . •, , ';.f. '!I'—,i''' i''I' -- I ' • k'''' • 1 4; ' '''''..j.ii‘ • 1 ' i '''‘."I , ; ,,';',"),'',fl'I, \ i'- -7,1', .. '',. g• t I --.-:_:,.._------,----- --,-;--:_-_.7,= ._.--,-.- -.,1-,---;,-;; ,,..;- - • moo OD AVII.MD.BMW . — 0 1 '• ' '''',.'!I, ;, :''--,' 1.4 1.!ill --I 'I ' CU .... a in =. M ',,- ,2,, -. ...-‘;' I '''i '•'• 1"1r c=, CD --..-..— 2 . Bonestroo 2335 West Highway 36• St Paul.MN 55113 Rosen, Office:651-636-4600• Fax:651-636-1311 me vitAnderlik& wwwbonestroo corn ill Associates Engineers&Architects January 28,2005 Mr.Eric Johnson,Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Boulevard P.O.Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082-2007 Re: Highway 36 Improvements Utility Relocation BRA File No. 55-05-000 Dear Eric: As per your request,we have estimated the cost to relocate the utilities for the Highway 36 Improvements. This estimate was based on the 1995 plan. Following is a brief description of our assumptions and the cost for relocating the utilities. The proposed improvements for Highway 36 are at grade; therefore,it was assumed that the majority of the trunk utilities will not be in conflict. At the intersection of Highway 36 and Oakgieen Avenue the frontage road is proposed to be pulled back. As a result,it will be necessary to relocate sanitary sewer and water main at this location. We have estimated a total cost of$500,000 to relocate these utilities. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (651) 604-4788. Sincerely, BONESTRO ,ROSENE,ANDERLIK&ASSOCIATES INC '3;//te--ri • Zer-4-0'\,- Karen S. Erickson,P.E. cc: DMP,DDH,File—Bonestroo&Associates 105543050DO Work_ln_[rogtessUolmson_KSVHighway3fmiacateudliticscost19951.26.05 doe a • St Paul. St. Cloud. Rochester. Willmar. MN• Milwaukee. WI• Chicago. IL a, Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS { r' 14168 Oak Park Boulevard No • P.O.Box 2007• Oak Park Heights,MN 55082-2007• Phone:651/4394439• Fax:651/439-0574 January ary 2 8. 2005 Representative Mark R. Kennedy,Minnesota 6th District 1111 Hwy 25N, Suite:204 Buffalo Minnesota 55313, Re: Transportation Project Evaluation Criteria Questionnaire - Dear Congressman Kennedy: Enclosed you will find the original copy of materials faxed to you on Friday,January 28, 2005 for the Transportation Project Evaluation Criteria. The City thanks,you for your efforts to secure funding for this project including the City's utilities. Tf there is anything we can •or to provide you more information please let us know. ip Si► erely, • ricA. • • .on City A•A strator EAJ/jj Tree City.U.S.A. : TRANSPORTATION PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA, OFFICE OF REP.MARK KENNEDY(MN-6) PLEASE MAKE CERTAIN YOU HAVE FILLED OUT THE ENTIRE QUESTIONNAIRE. (All responses will be strictly limited to no more than 140 words.) If you have any questions pertaining to this questionnaire,please contact Mark Matuska(763- 684-1600)or Tim Morrison(202-225-2331). Questionnaires must be submitted,in electronic MS Word.doc format,to Rep.Kennedy's office no later than Friday,January 28th. 1. Name and Congressional District of the primary Member of Congress sponsoring the project. Rep.Mark Kennedy(MN-6) 2. Other Members supporting the project. Representative Kind and Senators Coleman and Feingold 3. If the project is a highway project, identify the State or other qualified recipient responsible for carrying out the project. • The Minnesota Dept. of Transportation (MnDOT), in conjunction with the Wisconsin Dept. of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration 4. If the project is a transit project,please identify the project sponsor(must be an eligible recipient of Federal transit funds). The project is not a transit project 5. Please categorize the project. (Check one) Highway or bridge X Intermodal facility(passenger) Transit rail new start Intermodal facility(freight) Bus,bus equipment, or bus facility Bicycle and Pedestrian Other(please identify) 6. Is the project eligible for the use of Federal-aid highway or transit funds under Title 23 or Title 49 of the United States Code? Yes, Title 23. • li 7. If the project is a highway or bridge project,is it on the National Highway System? No. 8. Briefly describe the total project. a. Is it part of a larger system of projects? b. What is the total estimated cost of the project? The project is generally referred to as the St. Croix River Crossing/State Trunk Highway (STH) 36 Reconstruction, the "Project", and extends from State Trunk Hwy 5 in Stillwater,MN to 150th Street in New Richmond, WI. Generally the Project includes building a new river crossing on the St. Croix River and reconstructing the approaches in Minnesota and Wisconsin. For the purposes of this document the City is dealing only with the issues related to the STH 36 portion. The STH 36 reconstruction element of the Project(from Hwy 5 to Osgood Ave)has been included in the Project for which the City of Oak Park Heights has examined three different designs for final incorporation into the Project: • 1) Initial layouts were studied in the Highway 36 Partnership Study whose recommendation was to reconstruct STH 36 into the "Concept F Buttonhook"Design, see Attachment A .However,through the Environmental Impact Process the refined final design of Concept F was found to be unacceptable to the City of Oak Park Heights. 2) Another option that had been considered was the "Cut and Cover", but has not been fully studied or examined in enough detail to gauge its true viability,see Attachment B . 3) Lastly,the "1995 Layout",Attachment_C has been previously studied and did receive layout approval by the City, but is subject to a final Memorandum of Understanding. NEW SENTENCE NOT IN EMAIL OR PREVIOUS FAX: City's approval of the layout in 1995 was prior to court action that stopped the project,see Item 15. All three options carry the same financial implications for the City of Oak Park Heights in that the City,according to MnDOT, is to be responsible for the expenses incurred to relocate utilities(water,sewer,storm)from the right-of-way or as may be necessary to benefit the project. These costs could be as high as $9.04 million dollars. See Attachment D , MnDOT's cost share policy. • { • As the STH36 has been designated a "High Priority Inter-regional Corridor" the need for the Project is high.Again,the citizens of Oak Park Heights are expected to bear the cost of utility relocations due to the reconstruction of a roadway that is overwhelmingly utilized by non-City residents. This burden would be financially devastating to a small community of 4,000. In total,the current and preliminary estimates for the total Project is$313 million, which includes approximately$22 million for the STH 36 with 1995 layout. Should the Concept F be implemented the STH 36 estimate is$120 million;with the Cut and Cover estimated at$140 million.MnDOT has stated that it is their intention to proceed with final mapping for Concept F, but has not committed to funding City Utility relocation. 9. Please identify the specific segment for which project funding is being sought,including terminus points. State Trunk Highway 5 to the St Croix River, including relocation of City Utilities. 10. What dollar amount are you requesting in the authorization for this project or segment of a project? • $9.04 million for City of Oak Park Heights'utility relocations—(2004 dollars). See Attachment__ from City Engineer that estimates utility relocation costs. $500,000 for final design of STH 36. See Attachment_F_from MnDOT that estimates additional design costs for STH 36. 11.Project Schedule a. What is the proposed schedule and status of work on the project? See estimated schedule from Stakeholders Group,Attachment . b. What is the current stage of development of the project? (If the project is a transit new start,please specify whether the project is in alternative analysis,preliminary engineering,final design,has been issued a record of decision,under environmental review,or already has a current full funding grant agreement.) The project is in Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS)review stage. c. Will the requested funding for the project be obligated within the next five or six years? Yes. • 12.Project Plan a. Is the project part of the State's long-range plan? Yes. See Attachment H 2020 MET Council Transportation Policy Plan b. Is the project included in the metropolitan and/or State Transportation Improvement Program(s)? Yes,the Project is included in the MET Council's and MnDOT's Capital Improvement Plan for 2020, unless included as part of the St Croix River Crossing project. 13.Is the project considered by the State and/or regional transportation officials as critical to their needs? Please provide a letter of support from these officials,and if you cannot, explain why not. There has been verbal support for this project from Senators and State Representatives, but due to the timing of this document were unable to secure them. These will follow when available. 14.Does the project have national or regional significance? Describe. This project is part of the High Priority Interregional Corridor—Trunk Highway • System. The St. Croix River has been designated as a "Wild and Scenic"river. 15.Has the proposed project encountered, or is it likely to encounter,any significant opposition or other obstacles based on environmental or other types of concerns?If yes, please describe. Legal action halted this project in 1995 due to the impact of a bridge on the "Wild and Scenic"St. Croix River. The current process includes creating a "Stakeholders Group" comprised of different parties whose charge is to workout any significant issues. It is unknown at this time if there are to be any further legal challenges. 16.Describe the economic, environmental,congestion mitigation, and safety benefits associated with completion of the project. Please see attached recommendations from the Partnership Committee, City Engineer and City Auditor. (Attachments_I_,_E_ & J Further information will be in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 17. Has the project already received funding through the State's federal-aid highway or transit formula apportionments or from other Federal, State, local, or private funds?If yes, how much and from what source? • No. • 18. Has the project received funding in a previous authorization act? No. 19.If the project has received funding in a previous authorization act,please cite the act(s) and amount(s)authorized. No. 20.Has the project received funding in a previous appropriations act? No. 21. If the project has received funding in a previous appropriations act,please cite the act(s) and amount(s)appropriated. No. 22.If the project is funded,please provide a description of the project as you would like it to appear in the bill. Any legislation that would authorize/fund the Project should explicitly include that at least 9.04 million dollars shall be provided to the City of Oak Park Heights for the relocation of City utilities necessary to accommodate the reconstruction of Hirhwav 36 as part of the St. Croix River Crossing/STH 36 Relocation.Additionally, language should be inserted that provides the City with $500,000 in to develop a final and acceptable STH 36 design. And, without such assistance the City of Oak Park Heights would not be in a position to bear such a costly burden and would be unable to approve final layout. 1 If. ' ' , k ...,......; • d hir .4.,..( 1 IN J Ng '.• Ss ..s54:------- ii•I I(, .-. ,: ._.!_l , i - e -----• -----l\r57 .--‘ { ,.. .•—• 0---:-- ----;.,- -7---•• t•,b,.-..tir- .' • ''-''. I F.JA%.1" 01 41 it' "it', , \ .., :,..,.„, 4 L.1 , •,,, . \, .,A. ....i , .■....., ,,, . . i '\ .. -,..ckl,•11-',. '•.ti i ---. .•,6. T, ,1, - - •., :-I, ‘T•icii,otc'ilci4 ,. i .,-,' ,i - 0(••\ ;ar,,,ftr..,.i.,, r f, . ..., ,,' ,, ' •n•I',.s,, iv-,/ I', e•- , • Xs..i?,.; :,..:- "I ■ ,. / ,. I vka., .. ,, .•,-; !, 1 i--, , N.• ,-,-;,,.- it .,,,r ,t1 .,, ""t7r' Ilitt I 2 I"— :••:: iii .... .;i 'll• - \ ri [1,1 i,, . LU 0 Z i i 101, J 0 (..) • ', ..Ar, ',11 1 :,,::::. ' •415. ''-.-'-'- .:' - --j--- ,„1, I 1„..:,- ... ,, .:6;4!•,tt"'n tpri, 0 1"1' = \\\ Z j{ f.1 "'\ :`;"17,?4, '.!.•• 1"""" Ili r e.\,_ a • ..,',i p 1 1.. . if 77,.. —1-1 i lip( .Z.;i I:I ,' .•- CO. .411)' ''' l' - 'fry.'''1 , i'i , ■ .--'''''. I' ' I.•I 1 i • ' '1 11 `'..--x:'• ' i ,r- •.\ '-ri, i/f : SA 1 N• i 1 , ''‘ • iH' IN - fbf . i I ) , 2 .-7 ' ..■,., b 1,7 r:fi.1 , III , . i' ,• i 1 n -If i• . , 1 .,• T , i 1 ■ I 3 1 1 • 1 Val • Attachment B • ' to ior:t.,..„..,. 1 -4--4'74'4–:,-,.?'.1.11,). v.H3::Y Tr •:uS . • ` 'N, •S • S; x 'Styye { 1 1 F^"" a. tt ._....eta :?! w I 0 f- Or i � {° s• , k Y 1 W ce III K .._._ + .ham-- V '! 1 V ,.t F— ..........iiiin,1!:,.1.11,:j1,,,ii::: '.''—''''''"' I ...Y'm.0 11it '+ 1 f 3 _ I ,ii.I iA. It ::,',.'...: .iti, • Is-_.:3 0 xla ..., f£ Attachment C • 1 R . •=.-- ",-ie.H;_... * 7.4,(6j;.:'JI c',1',.."'-a a'',J-c, 10-41,i, v a 1,4,fi ,- ■A,i 1 1:v,1 ' ''z. Li. i'lf;■••i7 0' ' '5.1 J,___I, 1, ,,,, 9'1* •-,1'.."--J _ All .........__+,L t--IL____k____ --ii :,- r-----7,------7—.-.1-,:., .. .,. i 11 11. 11 ii i I — li i+ + 'I I'■cp I —1 __ , — —7! i (.q.0.... ...., Li C-iii.,..1 . ni1=, •+-.'-.:-:--1,:_. : 11 I 1 fl,iro!! Ar..-4 1__5., y , ‘,- !1.7-11 11,— !, - '---'----i' --7,3,' '-'=' -"-'-'_ --' - _....-7-„- (s.caroo).1.1.sAv a000so -, . as.as.00).x-stiv a000so i'r s-1 'I- II' 'it 1 . 1,.„ 1 0 , %`• )4,0-1 L.ii I 0-4 :'i' i . t—J iv i: :. el.4 1,1 1H. 91,1-. L. 5 , l Ilr jdtIrtff,i.._.., , '. ,{D .1 ! `-'./In 0 — .4 1.U J ll;'T71103 44 4.;' C4'17 -.-.-e'...". 1 II' ,..., 1 13 M1/LI , i ,I. --,1:lisilin 1, 1 11,1 p -EL- 1-= i; ,,,,... :,LILI.H14 . -.:).] 1,,1' ('----) i inzw!I '. ......—,- _(,) _. iz2,':11 — -- - ( 1 liodzgil 1,,,..._. -I,, li _ , r, _...,, • ) ___---: liLi,1411 ---1,1 1 i?-)--. t„.11-F,F14A" •4".' "\I,1 (99 11980)'any . ' L.11\ X■J''ji ...Li b .J \ Olt---‘4 1,1.-.--...-•-•S ''-7- •: — :. .= - ny Nassolivo 1 ) X-.01:1%•"" Ni #., ,7-..F---...jr—`.1 r---'■ l'',--.m' I ..:-------', . 2 C1' -, t—'11,111:11 '`, I H- ,=7 C14••• )iiii-i i, I I I 1 11 ...W.7E++++- —•L1i,,,., _i_,4R:. _J - .00) TD 0 i i i\_ -IN,,II i'-'' ' '''Ott ,- r , mit -1 rFI.,..--r-7-'1::i,1 IFT.•n•i od El 0 ° 1;7 111/1111/: 0.4 gE . 011E1f911000 0 - —Hi i i iii )4iiiiik—si-,;- r 1.0. Hit, i .0_4,, 0,-Bil,._-_, w ... iii----i I .sitv NOIONIHSVAA:JP, 711: _-,..,:!.;+ 0\ 1 k:1014,err,1—.1 j `,,,,, IL. CD C•"'‘I-,77'.:HPI,44''9 U.'" '.-`7•77.7. !.sAV•I'LMION _ ,,,-.C;.--- il •••• i 21.7 r'="--.• I li I iii 'I v- as;LH--- '..-7-- -,'1110 .i . itt i--,i i 1 L-tsi Ili it._ g L 0 a. >. IA i".----L..".---:—. . "".+01 lei i-is . i it I ii 0 it,. .ii.. \,..,-.., V4■ I vi i i I ti iiii_..i_PI •I - .., e = n • ,.. ,,....-Nw..4, I;II :f/i NI ti it , - A I .:-..---, 44 WI --Z...-... '14 ,...."."-• 1„f 1,1...;LI,101. S :ton ta ---.. 1--"Ar- 1 ,. x o I— . 47,. ..._. ....._. ,..., . .. , i---, .......... ,,, —.. .A, iIti ii io --------- I' 0 E, ; 'Wit I?: ■, a -. . . _.._.: -- n .., (a .. '---;.-4,-.....v .4-.--.,.. / it ii ill 0 c 0 c c.> .... "il*6.)---'----,-...! , •..••' • 11 09381144,915,0~.4M,,FIASOMMoNeVif Attachment D • �O��r1NESp��yo Mn/DOT POLICY 1 POSITION STATEMENT 0 OF TRp Date: August 7, 1985 Revised: June 2001 Revised: April 2004 Reference: Highways(including Bikeways)6.1 Policy and Procedures for Cooperative Construction Projects With Local Units of Government Position Statement: • Where a mutual benefit and a demonstrated transportation need exists,Mn/DOT endorses cooperative construction projects with local units of government. Mn/DOT's ability to expend trunk highway funds for cooperative construction projects is limited by the State of Minnesota Constitution,Article XIV,section 2 and section 6,and by Minnesota Statutes § 161.20 to the construction,improvement,and maintenance of the trunk highway system. This policy applies to all Mn/DOT construction projects. This policy has been developed to determine the extent to which trunk highway funds may be expended,and when local unit of government funds are necessary, for elements of a cooperative construction project. The basis of the policy is that Mn/DOT participation is limited to trunk highway purposes. This policy is for internal Mn/DOT�urposes only,and it is not intended to provide any claim or .expectatiotn_oflega entitlement to financial participation except where I CIT/DOT-has specifically contracted at its sole..disgretionfor.such.participahnn,_., O rat ,nsiefnarauthority to- • determine whether it will participate in the cost of any project. _ Existing cooperative construction agreements are to remain in effect under the terms and conditions specified in those agreements. The policy and procedures within this document shall apply only to the development of new cooperative construction agreements with local units of government. • Cooperative Construction Position Statement 6-1 Projects with Local Page 1 of 2 Government DS12.doc 1 ' • The maximum amount of Mn/DOT participation in the costs for aesthetic elements of a project is the sum of the bridge,retaining wall,noise wall and remaining project cost components. Costs for aesthetic elements beyond those established as eligible for Mn/DOT participation,or beyond Mn/DOT's maximum participation in accordance with this policy, will be 100%local responsibility. More than one aesthetic participation factor may be used on a project. For example,one bridge may be of greater significance than another bridge and could have a higher level of impact for determination of Mn/DOT aesthetic participation. Similarly,one segment of a project may fall within an area that warrants a • different level of impact than the rest of the project,such as an urban area on a longer rural project, or a specific, environmentally-sensitive location along a longer project. In these cases,the project may be segmented to determine the level of impact and project type in order to arrive at the appropriate • Mn/DOT cost participation factors to address specific project settings and features. In these cases,participation factors and costs are considered on a segment-by-segment basis. Mn/DOT • aesthetic cost participation is limited to the sum of participation for all segments. ix. Aesthetic Funding Considerations Participation percentages for aesthetic elements will not be modified or adjusted based on bid prices of the successful bidder. Federal aid community enhancement funds which may be available through the ATP procedures,and the Mn/DOT Landscape Partnerships Program should be considered as options for funding of aesthetic improvements. 3.g. Utilities Owned by Local Units of Government In conjunction with a trunk highway construction project, the most frequently encountered utilities owned by local units of government include,but are not limited to: • Sanitary sewer systems; • Water mains and associated hydrants, gate valves and manholes; and, • Guidelines for Cooperative Section I Dag 6-51 Construction Projects Page 49 of 89 DS11.doc • • Locally-owned street lighting. Based on Minnesota Statutes § 161.46,the following factors determine which agency is responsible for the cost of the adjustment or relocation of utilities owned by a local unit of government. 1. Local Responsibility for Utilities Owned by Local Units of Government • If the affected utility is within trunk highway right-of-way by permit,the local unit of government is responsible for 100%of f the cost of all utility relocation or adjustment required for the • trunk highway project,except as defined in section ID3g2 below. • The local unit of government is responsible for 100%of the costs associated with improvements or betterment of existing facilities. Betterment occurs when the relocated facility is upgraded or replaced with functionally superior facilities. • The local unit of government is 100%responsible for costs associated with the removal and replacement or the relocation of 41 items, such as street signs,parking meters or impacts by the utility work which would not have been impacted by Mn/DOT construction. . • The local unit of government is responsible for 100%of the cost of utility relocation and adjustments that are necessitated by construction in which Mn/DOT has no cost participation. 2. Mn/DOT Responsibility for Utilities Owned by Local Units of Government • . If the affected utility was in place prior to Mn/DOT taking over the roadway as a trunk highway,Mn/DOT will pay for the utility relocation or adjustment in accordance with the first move clause as defined in Minnesota Rules 8810.3300. Mn/DOT will pay for the relocation of`in kind,' functionally-equivalent facilities only, and will not pay for the additional costs associated with betterment. The local unit of goverwnent must furnish data ;. regarding the installation of the existing utility to invoke the provisions of this clause. Mn/DOT may include the relocation work in the contract,or pay the local unit of government to accomplish this work.Mn/DOT will not pay for utility relocation or adjustment in accordance with the first move clause when the • Guidelines for Cooperative Section 1 D3g 2 6-52 Construction Projects Page 50 of 89 DS11.doc • relocation is necessitated by construction without Mn/DOT participation. The local unit of government is responsible for 100%of the cost of any utility adjustment or relocation that is necessitated by such construction. • The agency that initiates a project pays for 100%of all utility relocations necessitated by construction on interstate trunk highways,except in cases where the majority of project costs are • shared then the utility relocation costs will be shared. • Previous agreement language that provides for payment of adjusted or relocated utilities by Mn/DOT. The local unit of government must be able to furnish such agreement language regarding the installation of the existing utility to invoke the provisions of this clause. • Mn/DOT will participate up to 100%for the cost of adjustment and the relocation of locally-owned utilities that is necessitated by work on local roadways,locally-owned frontage roads and locally-owned property or easements on a Mn/DOT initiated and let project,in which the Right-of-Way is taken over by Commissioner Orders. Mn/DOT participation in such costs will • be in the same ratio as Mn/DOT participation in the work causing the need for the locally-owned utility adjustment or relocation. Information regarding whether a municipally-owned utility is within trunk highway right-of-way by permit or is subject to the first move clause is available from Mn/DOT's Utility Agreements Engineer. 3. Construction Engineering The agency that supervises the construction of a cooperative construction project will be reimbursed by the non-supervising agency for construction engineering costs at a rate of 8%of the non- supervising agency's total construction cost responsibility, including any federal aid participation. Payment for construction engineering costs includes the cost of inspection,materials testing, surveying and • staking,and construction administration required for the cooperative construction project. Guidelines for Cooperative Section II A3 6-53 Construction Projects Page 51 of 89 DS11.doc • Attachment E • • • Bonestroo,Rosene,AnderIlk and Associates,Inc.Is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Bonestroo and Employee Owned Rosene Principals:Otto G.Bonestroo,P.E.•Marvin L.Sorvala,P.E.•Glenn R.Cook,P.E.•Robert G.Schunicht,P.E.• Jerry A.Bourdon,RE.•Mark A.Hanson,P.E. Anderlik& Senior Consultants:Robert W.Rosene,P.E.•Joseph C.Ander lik,P.E.•Richard E.Turner,P.E.• Susan M.Eberlin,C.P.A. • Associates Associate Principals:Keith A.Gordon.P.E.•Robert R.Pfefferle,P.E.•Richard W Foster,P.E.•David O.Loskota.RE.• Michael T.Rautmann.P.E.•Ted K.Field,P.E.•Kenneth P.Anderson,P.E.•Mark R.Roifs,P.E.• David A.Bonestroo,M.B.A.• En +neers&Architects Sidney P.Williamson,P.E.,L.S.•Agnes M.Ring.M.B.A.•Allan Rick Schmidt,P.E.•Thomas W.Peterson,P.E.• g James R.Maland,P.E.• Miles B.Jensen,P.E.• L.Phillip Gravel III,P.R.• Daniel J.Edgerton.P.E.• Ismael Martinez,P.E.• Thomas A.Syfko,P.E.•Sheldon J.Johnsen• Dale A.Grove,P.E.• Thomas A.Roushar.P.E.• Robert J.Devery,P.E. • Offices:St.Paul,St.Cloud,Rochester and Willmar,MN•Milwaukee.WI•Chicago,IL Websi te:'www.bones troo.com September 23,2004 Mr. Eric Johnson I City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd.,P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082-2007 Re: Highway 36 Utility Relocation BRA File No. 55-04-134 Dear Eric: • As directed, we have performed preliminary engineering estimates for the utility relocations associated with MnDOT's proposed improvements to Highway 36 and the St. Croix River Bridge Crossing(SCRBC). The estimates were based on two options for Highway 36,the Preferred Alternate "F"and the Cut& Cover Concept, and two options for the SCRBC, Option B-1 and Option C. The cost estimates included below represent potential utility relocation and related right-of-way/easement costs associated with four possible construction scenarios. The estimates for the improvements to Highway 36 were based on the two-dimensional concept plans that were available for Alternate "F"and the Cut&Cover Concept. Two-dimensional concept plans were also used for Option B-1 and Option C of the SCRBC. With these options, • the preliminary utility relocation cost estimates were calculated for the following four scenarios: 1. Alternate"F"with Bridge Option B-1 • 2. Alternate "F"with Bridge Option C 3. Cut and Cover with Bridge Option B-1 4. Cut and Cover with Bridge Option C • The majority of the City's water and sewer system is located, by permit,within the existing MnDOT right-of-way. If the Highway 36 corridor is designated as a freeway these utilities will have to be relocated. As a result, the estimates for all four scenarios include removing and relocating any utility that is currently located longitudinally within the existing right-of-way. • 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 , , • The table below shows the total cost for removing and relocating the existing utilities along the proposed Highway 36 improvements and the SCRBC. These costs have been separated by utilities that are currently within the existing MnDOT right-of-way and outside the existing MnDOT right-of-way. Also included in the total cost is land acquisition for right-of-way and/or easements that will be required for relocation of the utilities that are currently in the existing MnDOT right-of-way. Alternate F Alternate F Cut&Cover Cut&Cover with Bridge with Bridge with Bridge with Bridge Option B-1 Option C Option B-1 Option C Within Existing $2,870,000 $2,870,000 $3,100,000 $3,100,000 ROW Outside $2,520,000 $3,190,000 $1,660,000 $2,330,000 Existing ROW Land Acquisition $2,980,000 $2,980,000 2,860,000 2,860,000 Total Cost $8,370,000 $9,040,000 $7,620,000 $8,290,000 • Due to the proposed depth of the highway in the Cut&Cover Concept,it would be necessary to construct lift stations to transport sewage from the north side of the highway to the south side. Accordingly, as shown in the table above, the Cut&Cover Concept has a higher cost for utilities within the existing MnDOT right-of-way. If you have any questions or require additional information,please contact me at(651)604-4815. Sincerely, BONESTROO, ROSENE,ANDERLIK&ASSOCIATES INC. ...owe; "2, 7`,t. ,.- 7I,-.(; Dennis M. Postler,P.E. Cc: Judy Holst,Finance Director Tom Ozzello,Public Works Director Mark Vierling,City Attorney DMP, KSE,DDH,File—Bonestroo • K:\5515504134\Word\Correspondence\Correspondence—Outgoing—Letterhead\irighway 36 relocation.doc Attachment F • I �,I { is 4 Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 • Date: January 6,2005 To: Oak Park Heights City Council Stillwater City Council From: Rick Arnebeck Area Manager,Mn/DOT • Subject: TH 36 Improvement Options Report to Council At the last joint city council meeting held regarding TH 36 improvements,I presented our findings regarding our review of the"cut and cover concept". The meeting concluded with a request that I prepare a letter to the city councils regarding what further study might be needed and what the cost range and time requirement of such a study might be. It was agreed that the councils would take this information under consideration in January with the hopes of arriving a position by the end of February. • This report is provided in response to that request and includes additional information for your consideration. WHAT DO WE KNOW TODAY? • Concept F will provide long-term(>20 yrs)operational performance for both the mainline and the frontage roads,will cost approximately$100 million(planning estimate)for construction and right of way,but will have significant impacts to the business community if implemented without allowing the business community time to plan and adjust to changes in traffic circulation and access.Construction could take up to 4 yrs due to staging and traffic requirements. Significant utility relocation costs should be anticipated. ■ The"Cut and Cover"concept appears to provide long term(>20 yrs)operational performance for both the mainline and the frontage roads,is estimated to cost $140 million(planning estimate),but could have significant impacts to the business community due to significant restriction or elimination of business accesses along much of the frontage roads during construction staging and after construction is complete. Construction could take 6 yrs or more due to staging and traffic requirements. Further study would be required to accurately determine the operational performance, engineering feasibility, and environmental impacts of An equal opportunity employer : y January 6,2005 Page Two r a this concept.Based on the amount of effort involved in evaluating Concept F and • the additional study needed to conduct an underground analysis of soils and 451) ,,, groundwater conditions,the additional study costs would likely be in excess of $500,000 and.would likely take 12—18 months to complete after funding is secured and contracts were executed. Significant utility relocation costs should be anticipated. • The 1995 Approved Layout originally identified earlier for this project can be modified to provide short—term operational performance(<20 yrs)for both the mainline and frontage roads through the addition of traffic signals at the frontage roads and signal coordination and is estimated to cost$25 million(planning estimate)if all pavement,mainline and frontage road,is to be replaced.Access to local businesses could be maintained however they would experience increased congestion and limited interruptions to access during construction. Construction staging would require at least two years, one year for each half of the corridor (north side/south side). Some utility relocation or adjustment costs should be anticipated. WHAT ARE Mn/DOT'S OPTIONS AT THIS TIME? SThe current St. Croix River crossing project as proposed in the south corridor can be constructed in substantial compliance with the approved 1995 layout.The addition of signals to the frontage roads and capacity adjustments necessary due to increased traffic forecasts are not considered deviations from the layout.A portion of the 1995 approved layout at Norell/Washington was already constructed in conjunction with the TH 5 interchange construction work.At the present time,this appears to be the most prudent and feasible design to include in the preferred alternative based on the likelihood of securing necessary project approvals and funding appropriations. • The local community,due to significant business impacts that are anticipated, rejected consideration of Concept F as a part of the preferred alternative, at this time. It was clearly agreed at a previous joint city council meeting that concept F would not receive municipal consent if submitted. Concept F will remain one of the conclusions of the Interregional Corridor Study as a long term solution, however.it is unlikely Mn/DOT would pursue the programming of Concept F, now or in the future, unless requested to do by the cities with a commitment that municipal approval would likely be given should sufficient funding be secured. • The review done to date on the"Cut and Cover" concept by our staff has revealed the potential for significant adverse impact to the business community,water 411 resources, and wetlands,in addition to the issue of cost. Further engineering and • January 6,2005 Page Three environmental study would be needed to quantify these impacts so that a valid assessment could be made as to their magnitude. Without a substantial contribution to the costs of further investigation and a commitment from the cities that municipal approval would be granted if the impacts were deemed to be acceptable and funding could be secured,we do not feel it is prudent to commit additional TH funds to this concept. • Since there is no consensus on the part of the local cities at this time in regards to changing the design of TH 36 from Osgood to Norell/Washington,we will be preparing our preferred alternative description to include the layout previously approved in 1995.It should be understood minor modifications to the layout can be made during the detail design phase as mutually agreed between the"state and the cities. • Since this remains an issue under discussion and consideration by the cities,we can,if so requested,put the appropriate wording into the Final Amended EIS and record of decision that can allow the FAEIS and record of decision to be amended in the future,with proper supplemental environmental documentation,to reflect a revised design that has been agreed upon by all parties. Construction timing for any revised design concept would be subject to successfully securing funds for the improvement. WHAT ELSE SHOULD YOU BE AWARE OF? • Based on the significant funding shortfall for transportation,the St Croix River crossing project is now identified for programmed transportation funding in 2025. If the project is to be successful in moving forward at a sooner date,dedicated funding from outside the normal funding process must be successfully secured, • Transportation funding appropriation discussions will be going on at both the state and federal levels during the January—June '05 timeframe, The federal level is working on the 6 yr(may be 5 yrs this time)transportation act.The state level is working on the '06-'07 budget years. • Our present schedule anticipates the FAEIS in March with Record of Decision in April May. • TH 36 remains an Interregional Corridor and, continues to retain priority status for state funding that is directed towards "expansion"of the TH system. • January 6,2005 Page Four ■ If all necessary approvals are secured and supplemental funding is secured by June/July'05,it is possible that a project could be awarded in 2007. As I had indicated at the joint council meeting, I am available to meet with you any time to answer any questions or clarifications you may have. I have attached sketches of Concept F,Cut&Cover and the 1995 Approved Layout for your information. Attachment • • - . -:.,1 ' ,'• , it1 . ' J • IA-, A 1 70,i 1 0 j 1 1 g (f.....A •..; „'', •t ' . --- ,-. k., f, ' ,4'• . „if 1,' , ,,t; 2 '!"..:Q.':-)- '''' - 1-9 • 1-; , , - .. _ 2:. •-li,4,T,' , ,,,.. .IC 11!1 ', • latie".7.;,--7 .0.-''- ,ja rii •...1.7t \--1.1 g 1..,"' /I I . , , ,A, _ .. . • -, . # i..... ' 1 il ,41 , 1 -; 11 se fi . 1,7 1 l'..'''. 1 . ',, i • -,tot -r.gi,ottt, , 1 j i 0 CO • ' / i q ; .,.% l'er'' ;:il,t • - --="' • • . ,..-it C C A , ! . 1, ' e 1 1 ■.,.:-..,..-iow ow 1 1 f g' '—'1 '1 ,..,'—i-- ---\.-!' ', -:tt..04...,. 1""""I . t'l •,.A'(1(( .11.1 AvE ,!,0 ', i ,i . 9° 0 . I . f C1114- 'I. t I 1 If fgt r . C.) Z rtry-,y; .? q'. i te.t?•,.-:, : ' , -. '.:. ..1 , - ... 0 I ""1""\) -: : . H , V . r,----0,e 1„ l I, ,..7.,-'•"--rxe;,,,,, • ' ... W. •: le ' i •-, 5, • \ , *■%,, ,--- _ if.',..:' '-•.'"%i..,'- ‘, .34"-",:-'-''' 4,Vi-C' ■_ TT,. 77 VI.j'..C`b:q,i•,r:%:. .,,. ,...., X ..,, 4 1 ,----f: ---1 1,-',a i C") ■ i ,')1 ra I,,_ ,..: ..... 0 ... l' ,_ ,I 1, , a - 0 z f 1 ' ,, , ,.„.. _.„.. , . _-,..---- ,,,, , z 0 r ,q,, -' :: ' '-Oi ,-'. .., 0 M — • rrl 13 ."'.I. ."1 • i e,i I .11.- 1 , ,-7• I. — .. -. j 1,ga '1 i, •,"... N.7 I 4 ; r i., It /.::., A .d,...". t..1 .• *-1.',.. i 1 l' --I 1 A...cil'i,11\k ■ .?',tk i; — a iNArAri;;,tk s i d --. i 6P, .- .• '4,1 -"1 „ . 1 If 2`111 ,' tiv. 1.1 • 1 1 . .. ., ' II 1 /,'"?.` 'l' ' lja f.( 4!1'1.• 1 ',i it:a I' ' -', . .,,,, 'VW'.•.-. , . -L., ...V. ..- _ -___:,----..,1_,--z__-___,,, i-----,---------:- 45 —,--- --, / .,:4P ,r .f . .-- 111 ,,, . , ,„*,, : . ? VI leilc— • t4 i ill I- ..Iftj I 1 .1/ ,:. .` • . 1 _ ..r1r741WR L' :',..•7:1-41.:7;,r, ......1:11191104=02 , •-•":6 Attachment G • , St. Croix River Crossing Project: Updated Schedule December 10,2004 • 40 Scoping Phase: Sept 2003 Preparation of Scoping Document/Draft Amended Scoping Decision Document Nov 10,2003 Publication in EQB Monitor(submission of Notice on Nov 3) Dec 2.&3,2003 Public Scoping Meetings—Wisconsin and Minnesota Dec 10,2003 30-day comment period ends Dec 2003-Mar 2004 Preparation of Final Amended Scoping Decision Document(FASDD) March 29,2004 Publication of FASDD(submit to EQB on March 22) • Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement(SDEIS)Phase: • Jan—June 2004 Evaluation of alternatives/Preliminary Design/Preparation of SDEIS June 15 &21,2004 Public Informational Meetings—Wisconsin and Minnesota June—Aug 2004 Review by Mn/DOT/WisDOT/FHWA;Revisions Aug 16,2004 Publication(submit to EQB on Aug 9) Sept 21 &22,2004 SDEIS Public Hearings—Minnesota and Wisconsin Oct 6,2004 45-day comment period ends(required by Section 4(f)) Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement(SFEIS)Phase: Nov 2004-Feb 2005 Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement(MQA) / - Nov 2004-Feb 2005 Finalize Minnesota Highway 36 layout / . Nov 2004 Mar 2005 Response to SDEIS Comments/Preparation of SFEIS/Review by DOTs/FHWA Dec 2004 St.Croix Transit!Growth Workshop Jan-June 2005 Visual Quality Planning Process and Manual Development Feb 2005 National Park Service Section 7a Evaluation Apr-June 2005 Cooperating Agency SFEIS Review;Revisions June 2005 Publication of SFEIS • July 2005 30-day comment period ends August 2005 Preparation of Record of Decision September 2005 • Publication of Record of Decision September 2005 Municipal Consent June 2005 Funding Commitment 2005-2006 Final Design 2005-2007 Obtain Federal/State Regulatory Permits 2005-2007 Right-of-Way Acquisition 2007-2011 Construction ' 2011 Project Complete and Open to Traffic St. Croix Crossing Stakeholder Problem-Solving Process—Stakeholder Meeting Schedule • #01 -June 10,2003 • #10-May 4,2004 • #02-June 30,2003 •. #11 -June 22,2004 • #03-July 22,2003 • #12-July 27,2004 • #04- September,23,2003 • #13-October 26,2004 • #05 -October 28,2003 • #14-October 27,2004 • #06-November 25,2003 • #15-January 18,2005 • #07 -January 6,2004 • #16—rd Quarter 2005 • #08 -January 27,2004 • #17—3`d Quarter 2005 • #09-February 24,2004 • #18—4th Quarter 2005 • Project Website: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix/index.html Attachment H • • 111 s . • U Metropolitan Council aSummary Draft 2030 Transportation Policy Plan 1 Transportation at the Crossroads 4 More people, more trips Since 1970,the population of the Twin Cities metropolitan area has grown by 767,000,or more than 40 percent. During this same period,the region has seen: i . • More women entering the workforce.Between 1970 and 2000,the proportion of women in the Twin Cities workforce increased from 48.8 percent to 71.4 percent. Among the largest 25 metropolitan areas, the Twin Cities ranks the highest in I both male and female workforce participation. • Dramatic growth in auto ownership.In 1970,a third of the households in the 1.1! Twin Cities metropolitan area had two cars.By 2000, the figure had increased to 62 percent. In 2000,there was slightly more than one car for every licensed • driver in the metro area. Ile • Increased suburbanization and decentralization.In 1970, 54 percent of the region's households were outside of Minneapolis and St.Paul. By 2000,the figure had'risen to 73 percent. Similarly,the share of the region's jobs located • 1 outside of the central cities grew from 44 percent in 1970 to 69 percent in 2000. Today,more people are making more trips and traveling longer distances,with suburb-to- suburb commutes exceeding those from the suburbs to the central cities. By 2030,the region is expected to add nearly 1 million people,470,000 households and 560,000 jobs.This will generate an additional 4 million daily trips, a 37 percent increase Iin travel on our region's roadways. Slowing the growth In congestion While growth is a good thing,it poses challenges, as anyone who has traveled in peak hour traffic can attest. In 1990, 30 percent of the region's freeway lanes were congested during peak periods;by 2000,the figure had grown to 60 percent. In the Council's 2003 survey of metro area residents, traffic congestion ranked as the No. 1 concern, outpacing crime, education and housing. f` There are no"silver bullets"that will eliminate congestion.But the Council's I Transportation Policy Plan contains policies and strategies designed to slow the growth in congestion and improve mobility. Consistent with the 2030 Regional Development Framework—the umbrella chapter of the Council's metropolitan development guide— the Transportation Policy Plan calls for: 0 . . • 1 • • While no additional expansion projects are recommended as part of the 2030 Constrained • Plan Scenario, three modifications have been made as described below. The planned improvement project on•I-35W north of 461 Street to 1-94 has been modified'to • include an additional"transit priority/HOV lane"and Lake Street access.. This is the logical extension of the Crosstown/I-35W common area expansion project included in the 2005-2008 • TSP. The 2001 TIP now includes$185 million for this project. Inclusion of this project assumes a large portion of the additional funds'nneded will-come from federal high priority project allocation or•other non-MnDOT sources. The•turiing Of'this•project is uncertain,but it will not be added to MnDOT work plan during the next five years unless new funds materialize that are not currently assumed in the Constrained Scenario. The TH.36/St. Croix Bridge project had been fully funded at one time,but due to delays, the allocated funds were used for other projects. The funding was a partnership between the Metro Division and MnDOT Central Office,since TH'36 is of more than regional.significance connecting Minnesota to Wisconsin and other parts of the U.S. and Canada. The 2004-2006 TIP -7 includes$5 million as a placeholder. This project is nbt,programmed to move into MnDOT's 10- year plan at this time. The mediation process is not complete. The region has assumed it will be responsible for one-half of the Minnesota share of the bridge and highway project. The cost of • mitigation is significant and is not assumed to come from traditional sources. MnDOT annually prepares a 10-year Highway„Work Plan. Table 4-11 records the projects from the 2004-2013 10-year work plan that cost$.1A million or more and that are not included in the region's 2005-2009 TIP (the TIP projects arc listed,in Table 4-9). These are the next projects • to move into the TIP as funds become available since project development activities such as environmental assessment and final..design are currently being undertaken on these projects. • Table 4-12 lists the priority expansion projects to move,into the 10-year Work Plan prior to the next revision of this plan.. • The 2001 TPP made recommendations on future bridge needs across the major rivers in the • region. At present, there is $5 million allocated,for right-of-way preservation for a crossing of the Minnesota River near Chaska. This plan also adds $5 million for a crossing of the Mississippi River north of Anoka.A specific alignment has not yet been selected,although. several alternatives are being examined within.the corridor shown on Figure 4-11. The general location of these crossings must also continue to be shown in local comprehensive plans until a specific alignment is chosen through the environmental process. The Lafayette and Hastings bridges'suffer from"critical fractures." They are inspected frequently to evaluate their condition and may need to be advanced quickly and moved into the TIP ahead of other projects. The Hastings bridge replacement is assumed to be a four-lane structure. The Lafayette bridge project will éplacë the four-lane bridge that exists today with adequate lane and shoulder width. The cost'for these bridges are included in the preservation costs,but are mentioned in this section due'to their importance and unique situation of requiring funding in short notice.The region recognizes there may be other emergencies that require moving projects into the TIP. • 'r d , u 1 In many instances,corridor studies will need to be conducted prior to entering the design phase for these expansion projects. As each corridor study moves forward, a number of factors should be considered or included: • 1. Reflect the regional policy direction in the Framework and this Transportation Policy Plan. 40 2. Reflect adopted local comprehensive plans. • 90. • • • • I • s, p "• v, . �s I ° o a 4 4 2 i 0 71 m U '8 a 8 t � 0 N ° b .� °.4 a I 11 �"� o 71 o L ak ° C ° N C U V W r: 64 P 64 H O O U U co C G a ° o O °a o a. o b .I o o O o Q. ,N N ' N O O O N O N O N O N O N O I E '4 N gilNN4N 4N 4c94N 4N C �i N cd� 2 v a 0 � x 'b0 vi .q o L2. 'y y 2 tf 44 ai u 00 q� I L as c. U .0 ,A Mr klA 6Ty� .0 i) t'A Z a) O� - ° ri 0. V s� ` ° �I . N b -ma a . c ° � ° voa � .d en c ° w .b 3 °, al 13 "14 ea ce v � 0 w o U :agPI g � ZZg . goU r4 .? c r ,,, Cr rd >1g2 0 .b o o N N N N° N 0 I I., a .1., ial Z .4e 0 A O O . 0 ct d.�O N 0 N N N p N a g _ 'A 4d N h O 0 O O ° 3 ° c_0__ o ° o °O °o 0 •C V y o O en o vi N cr: 1/4c:) 0 0) W 6644 6MS 6NS 69 6~9 6Na L o - i a ar a M 2 % -4 �p 04 I" L a a � N p4b �o j b cd ° •m ■04,r) ..; a O^d (-I 4! 3,50 m x a_ , x :...; u IN • en c1:1 vi f4 Id ' C7U t.-: .5 II , 1 Categories to bb Considered for Plus 30 Percent Funding • Additional Mobility Needs on Principal Arterial Management Corridors • • • •The Constrained Plan limits inv..estment on sonteMetropolitan Highway System Principal Arterials to management projects. Should additional funds be available,the designated investment category would be revisited for these corridors to determine if expansion would be , • more cost-effective. Specific corridors considered candidates are: • • ' • 1-35W south of I-494 • • I-35W north of I-494 • • ' • I-35E south of TH 77 - • • • TH 36 from English to 1-694 '. • TH 65 from I-694 to TH 242 • ' Non-Trunk Highway Principal Arterials • The metropolitan highway system includes three county-owned nonfreeway principal arterials. In order to serve the function of principal arterials they need to be protected from.an. . unreasonably high numbers of intersections or access points. To accomplish this,these principal arterials need to have the support of affected local governments through their comprehensive pl sang . . • •• Anoka and Dakota County have completed access management plans for CSAH 14 and CSAH 46, St.Paul has recently completed.the reoonstruction of Shepard and Warner Road. In toall cases,access has been limited so the highways can function as principal arterials for most of . their lengths. The prime objective is to Manage these roadways so that they carry vehicles at an. • average speed of at least 40 miles per hour during peak traffic periods. If this objective is not . generally achieved over a significant portion of the highway,the roads will not be able to function as principal arterials and may need to be dropped from the system. . If additional funds are made available to the region,these three facilities should be evaluated for their expansion needs. Should expansion not be feasible,replacement principal arterials may. • need to be identified. • Mobility Needs on the"A"Minor Arterial System. MnDOT,the counties and some cities all own"A"minor arterials that have mobility or safety issues that cannot be addressed within the constrained plan. The problems on.trunk • highways have been identified in the TSP., Should additional funds be available,MnDOT, the Council and the counties should undertake a detailed assessment to prioritize the investments on this system. The counties,in their comprehensive plans,have identified problems on trunk ' highways (in some cases) and the county; systems:,,A:method should be found to prioritize these • projects so additional funds can be used to meet.these needs. . 1 14:.1 CS '. ' '• Important IRC projects are included in the constrained plan but additional needs still exist or *. ve yet to be defined. The intent of the IRC designation corridor plan and investments is to tect them over time,so their capacity is not reduced and expansion may be possible. The • state has set a minimum performance standard that the region supports so all corridors are treated . 100 • • • • fairl . The investment inside the seven counties to iii et this minimum is approximately This statewide rio ' •. • .. . . , ted -•uall . The regio has already made a significant investment in IRCs: Either additio•= •• or a change in the• formula to pay for these projects is needed. Only investments should be made where cities and towns have adopted the access managenierit plans for the corridor and are implementing it . ough their subdivision and platting ordinances. • New Principal Arterials • The region has not designated a new principal arterial since 1991. County plans and • corridor studies have noted the need to add high capacity highways to serve long regional trips. • Should additional funds become available,the region should determine where principal arterials are needed in accordance with the spacing guidelines in the functional classification system(see • . Appendix F). In addition, the needs of the county-owned principal arterials should be examined (see above). Included in this work would be the review of changing the functional class of some • minor arterials which have been requested,such as TH 55,TH 3.and TH 101. • Bridge Needs Across Major Rivers , , , Crossing of major rivers is an essential element of the regional roadway system. The Mississippi,Minnesota and St. Croix Rivers impose significant mobility restrictions.. Many of these crossings are principal arterials,while others.especially in the denser central cities are minor arterials. - .. • • • The Constrained Plan contains$10 million to protect right of way for crossings of the Mississippi River north of Anoka and the Minnesota River near Chaska. If funds become available, additional money should be made-available for right of way,design and constru.ctio these crossings. Funds should also be nia.de available to study the feasibility of additional capacity across the Mississippi between I.494 and Prescott. • Unconstrained Scenario • The MnDOT State Plan directs the districts to determine what the TOTAL needs are on the trunk highway system to 2030. This plan provides specific guidance on the measures the districts should use to calculate the needs so they will be comparable. The Council has worked closely with the Metro Divisions as it has attempted to do this. • MnDOT Metro District definect'the unmet needs based on the 1998 Unmet Needs Report. That study used a 2020 traffic forecast to idehtify congested trunk highways. Congestion•was based on.the PM peak where traffic,yolume to capacity ratio exceeded one. The expansion projects were intended to hold congestion to the:4998.levels. The principals and minor arterials that required expansion are found in Figure 4-12. The estimated cost was$11.698 billion. The analysis of this scenario found there were still „;+miles of congested highways after lanes were added to all the identified segments. Due to the significant cost of this alternative and the level of congestion that would Still exist,no further analysis of this scenario was carried out. • • • . 1101. • • • i Iswhen most of the benefits are realized by someone other than regional residents. Therefore, a state-wide initiative for establishing the IRC priorities may be more appropriately managed from MnDOT's Central Office rather than by individual districts. jTransportation Funding Principles The following transportation funding principles should guide the allocation of transportation funds in a manner consistent with regional development and transportation policies. These 11 principles are fully explained in Appendix L,along with funding options and criteria to evaluate funding sources. 1. Federal funds should be used to the maximum extent feasible to advance regional policies and priorities. 2. A local unit of government may advance the implementation of a project consistent with this Iguide,but no arrangements for payback of such funds by the state or region should be made. 3. The private sector should participate in funding transportation services or facilities that are required to serve one development or a select group of developments. All private sector cost j sharing should be arranged through a local unit of government or other governmental body, including cities,counties,the University of Minnesota or state agencies. I 4. Should the region determine that additional transportation funding is required in this area and generate such funding through regional revenue sources,MnDOT must ensure the appropriate amount of existing and future statewide revenues continue to be available to the 0 region. 5. Transportation funding for the regional highway and transit systems,whether from federal, state or regional sources,should be allocated to priority projects that meet regional I transportation needs rather than on a formula basis. The priority setting and funding allocation processes should be reexamined on a regular basis and responsive to changing needs. 6. The region,state,and various associations are pursuing additional revenue sources for transportation. Some nontraditional sources such as tolls are tied to specific corridors and facilities.The region supports these efforts,but they must follow adopted policies as would II other transportation investments. The Council will assist these efforts and will allocate regional funds to advance the use of these new funding techniques as long as the projects are recognized in this plan or are consistent with the adopted policies and procedures of the Iregion. `1 Criteria for Evaluating Revenue Sources • The transportation funding structure should be multimodal. ill • Whenever possible,transportation funds should be generated by both users and those who benefit directly from the service or facility. However,the general public should pay for transportation services meeting the needs of those unable to pay for transportation services or where the general public receives a benefit from the service. • ew revenue sources should be analyzed using the economic criterion of"efficiency." ii N y g • The revenue source should support broad regional goals and policies. 121 I • • Recommendations: 1. Existing frontage road conditions and poor geometries discourage use of the frontage road system,placing more traffic on TH 36. Regardless of decisions about the ultimate concept for TH 36, short-term improvements should be implemented prior to 2010. Short-term improvements should anticipate future roadway improvements to minimize repeated disruption of businesses and land uses in the area. 2. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the corridor should be improved regardless of which roadway concept is selected. If a safe crossing cannot be provided via roadway connections, then a pedestrian/bicycle bridge should be considered. •3. Proposed roadway improvements should include aesthetic treatments appropriate to the character of the surrounding area including lighting, landscaping, bridge and retaining wall • treatments and pavement selections. 4. A grade-separated facility with two interchanges and maximum speed of 45 mph should be considered as the ultimate solution for the corridor to provide adequate capacity and acceptable levels of operations. However, design of this facility should seek to minimize its impact on the surrounding communities through sensitive choices of horizontal alignment, vertical placement and aesthetically pleasing treatments. The design should seek to minimize business takings and to explore opportunities where mutually-agreed upon sale of property or relocations of businesses can occur. 5. Following completion of preliminary design, Mn/DOT and the cities of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater should explore options for preserving right-of-way and minimizing future land use impacts through official mapping or some other mutually-agreed upon mechanism by December 31,2003. 6. The study partners should continue to work with Mn/DOT through the preliminary design process to address the above concerns, and, through a cooperative process, develop a roadway improvement package acceptable to all parties by December 31,2003. 7. Transportation alternatives (e.g. Light Rail Transit, or bus hub) should be examined as part of future Mn/DOT planning for the area. Next Steps L^, These recommendations will be presented to the Oak Park Heights Planning Commission and City Council, the Stillwater Planning Commission and City Council, and the Washington County Board for adoption. The resulting recommendations provide the conceptual framework for development of preliminary engineering layouts for the study corridor by Mn/DOT and consideration of staging for the proposed future improvements in the development of the St. Croix River Crossing or future projects in the area. • • 1 TH 36 Partnership Study: Final Report - IS • December 2002 • Attachment I • • rte:,, it .;� Recommendations: • „- 1. Existing frontage road conditions and poor geometries discourage use of the frontage road " ' system, placing more traffic on TH 36. Regardless of decisions about the ultimate concept• for TH 36, short-term improvements should be implemented prior to 2010. Short-term a'`; improvements should anticipate future roadway improvements to minimize repeated •a disruption of businesses and land uses in the area. • t ".: 2. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the corridor should be improved regardless of which 1J-4;,,• roadway concept is selected. If a safe crossing cannot be provided via roadway connections, then a pedestrian/bicycle bridge should be considered. 3. Proposed roadway improvements should include aesthetic treatments appropriate to the character of the surrounding area including lighting, landscaping, bridge and retaining wall treatments and pavement selections. 1' • 4. A grade-separated facility with two interchanges and maximum speed of 45 mph should be considered as the ultimate solution for the corridor to provide adequate capacity and acceptable levels of operations. However, design of this facility should seek to minimize its impact on the surrounding communities through sensitive choices of horizontal alignment, vertical placement and aesthetically pleasing treatments. The design should seek to minimize business takings and to explore opportunities where mutually-agreed upon sale of property or relocations of businesses can occur. 5. Following completion of preliminary design, Mn/DOT and the cities of Oak Park Heights 't. and Stillwater should explore options for preserving right-of-way and minimizing future land use impacts through official mapping or some other mutually-agreed upon mechanism 3 by December 31,2003. 6. The study partners should continue to work with Mn/DOT through the preliminary design process to address the above concerns, and, through a cooperative process, develop a roadway improvement package acceptable to all parties by December 31,2003. 7. Transportation alternatives (e.g. Light Rail Transit, or bus hub) should be examined as part 4.`, of future Mn/DOT planning for the area. i' Next Steps These recommendations will be presented to the Oak Park Heights Planning Commission and City J'f Council, the Stillwater Planning Commission and City Council, and the Washington County Board for adoption. The resulting recommendations provide the conceptual framework for development of preliminary engineering layouts for the study corridor by Mn/DOT and consideration of staging for the proposed future improvements in the development of the St. Croix River Crossing or future projects in the area. il . . :1 TH 36 Partnership Study: final Report - 15 . December 2002 • Attachment J • • 09/28/04 15:20 FAX 651 426 5004 HLB TAUTGES REDPATH 0 002 • H Lil R Tautges Redpath, Ltd. Certified Public Accountants and Consultants INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES To The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Oak Park Heights,Minnesota We have performed the procedures enumerated below,which were agreed to by the City of Oak Park Heights,solely to deterrnine the financial impact of the St. Croix River Bridge Project on the City of Oak Park Heights. This agreed-upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of those parties specified in the report. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the • procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose. Our procedures and findings are as follows: 1. Determine loss of tax base due to parcelspreviously taken Our previous reports(dated March 6, 1992 and June 2, 1995) identified specific parcels to be affected by this project. This was achieved by using specially prepared half-section maps containing the specific parcels with a"footprint" of the project. Our 1995 report identified 98 parcels taken off the City's tax roll,due to MNDOT acquisitions. A summary is as follows: Total Percentage of Percentage of Market Total Market Tax Total Tax Value Value Capacity Capacity Property Taken Based on 1995 Plan $4,890,000 2.4% S69.300 1.1% • The above amounts are based on the City's 1994/95 total market value and tax capacity. The City has estimated that,based on a 5%annual market value growth rate,the 2004/2005 market value for these parcels would be$7,585,994. White Bear Lake Office:4810 White Bear Parkway,White Bear Lake,Minnesota 55110,USA Telephone:651 426 7000 Fax:651 426 5004 Hastings Office:1303 South Frontage Road.Suite 13,Hastings,MN 55033,USA Telephone:651 480 4990 Fax:651 426 5004 in a Tainnu MAR k I Id Is a member of IN International.A world•wido organaation of accounting firms owl business oduisera. 09/28/04 15:20 FAX 651 426 5004 HLB TAUTGES REDPATB lQ 003 410 Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Page 2 Assuming that the tax capacity for these parcels grew at the same rate as the market value,the City has lost$871,648 of tax capacity relating to these parcels from,1995-2005 as shown below: Total Market Tax Year Value Capacity 0) 1994/1995 $4,890,000 $69,300 1995/1996* 5,134,500 72,765 1996/1997 * 5,391,225 76,403 1997/1998* 5,660,786 80,223 1998/1999 • 5,943,826 84,235 2000/2001 * 6,241,017 88,446 2001/2002* 6,553,068 92,869 2002/2003* 6,880,721 97,512 2003/2004* 7,224,757 102,388 2004/2005* 7,585,995 107,507 • Cummulativc loss of tax capacity-1995-2005 5871,648 *Estimated based on a 5%annual market value growth rate 0)Based on 1994/1995 class rates 2. Determine loss of tax base due to proposed acquisition of additional parcels related to the planned improvement to State Flighwav 36. The identification of specific parcels to be affected was based on maps containing the specific parcels with a"footprint"of the planned improvements to State Highway 36 (option F). Additionally,the impact on the City's tax base was determined using 2004/2005 market provided by the Washington County Auditor's office. values as p y gt ty As stated above, our 1995 report id- 198 parcels affected by this project. Based on the planned improvements, an addition 00 p., eels will be affected, either fully or partially. For purposes of this report,parcels i' t w.' partially affected were assumed to be fully taken from the tax base. • 09/28/04 15:20 FAX 651 426 5004 BLB TAUTGES REDPATH el 004 410• Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Page 3 The resulting loss in market value and tax capacity for the City of Oak Park Heights is as follows: Market Tax Value Capacity Property to be taken based on 2004 Plan $78,109,600 $1,064,414 Total for City(payable 2004) 443,955,200 6,445,927 Percentage to be taken 17.594% 16.513% City staff believe the acquisition of land by the state will not significantly affect the City's tax levy amount. However,the City's tax levy would be spread over a reduced tax base,which would increase the City's tax rate. An estimate of the change to the City's tax rate is as follows: • Calculation of Estimated Tax Rate Before State After State Acquisition Acquisition of Property of property Tax capacity value(payable 2004): Real estate and personal property $6,445,927 $5,360,752 Less:fiscal disparity contribution (798,048), (4'12,821) Taxable value for local tax rate $5,647,879 $4,887,931 Net tax levy: Gross tax levy-general $2,054,070 $2,054,070 Less: fiscal disparity distribution (112,203), (1 12,203), Net tax levy $1,941,867 $1,941,867 Net tax levy $1,941,867 $1,941,867 Divided by taxable value 5,647,879 4,887,931 Tax rate 34.382% 39.728% • 09/28/04 15:21 FAX 651 426 5004 , HLB TAUTGES REDPATH lit)005 Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Page 4 Assuming the tax rates as presented above,a comparison of the City portion of property tax of various properties before and after the acquisition of parcels is as follows: City Portion of Property Tax Before State After State Acquisition Acquisition Property Type of Property of Property $200,000 residential homestead $688 $795 $250,000 residential homestead 860 993 $500,000 commercial 3,180 3,675 $1,000,000 commercial 6,619 7,648 Note: Amounts are presented before reduction or state-paid credits. • 3. Determine loss of connection charges onparcels proposed to be acquired. • The City has determined that 9 of the 200 parcels to be taken have future connection charges attributed to them. Because these properties will not be developed,the City will not collect connection charges on them. A summary of connection charges that would not be collected is as follows: Type of Connection Charges Amount Water connection charges $167,825 Sewer connection charges 96,414 Storm water connection charges 212,521 Total connection charges $476,760 4. Determine utility relocation costs Certain parcels being taken will require utilities located within them to be relocated. The cost of the relocation was estimated by the City's engineer and can be found in a separate document prepared by the City engineer. S .09/28/04 ' 15:21 FAX.651 426 5004 HLB TAUTGES REDPATH Z006 • 1 z.. rs Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Independent Audato ep P Page 5 Closing The work performed by our firm is considered an"agreed upon procedures" engagement under AICPA standards. In this type of engagement,our role is to perform procedures designed to determine the financial information requested by the City. The procedures we performed do not constitute an audit on the financial impact of the St. Croix River Bridge Project on the City of Oak Park Heights. Accordingly,we do not express such an opinion. :Rather,we verified the financial information based on the procedures we performed. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City of Oak Park Heights and is not intended to be and should no t be used by anyone oth e r th an those specified parties. September 28,2004 N�8 Tiµ'1a4A, �,+�t. • HLB TAUTGES REDPATH, LTD. Certified Public Accountants • • 1 $NESO). gt" z Minnesota Department of Transportation � a oFrnP vf,q° Metropolitan Division Waters Edge • 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 January 6, 2005 Eric Johnson City Administrator Oak Park Heights PO 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Dear City Administrator: Attached you will find the T.H. 36 Improvement Options and the Report to the Council along with maps that may be distributed to the Council Members. Sincerely, • Rick Arnebeck East Metro/Area Manager Minnesota Department of Transportation Attachment • An equal opportunity employer r it a C 3' } t a ,-I E+ :I N, t ' 1 . •..,•-:-t.,.--.•.' .T.r l ,% I t.c i fil I .1C' rt 0 { . ,u 111 3 1 { ',1 1 i i� I {P � ; (�1;j' s a{ 1 � �fxt�tus • \li au�un �ti., ■ A l / .y,�� am --,t r . —•:: ��.� ii u ,,' t 1 {� a� s 7... • , � ,� _,.- . . { h. M n• y t a 'td _d V • et, 1 .�� - Id ''`s I,, -�, r� 1 f• • , > 1 t� i' l 1 r - - i / V A. ��.i X \fir w ` /�` ✓f ..` -v F.., i \. ✓ - -=� f ...-••., ,. i, , .. .„ .,.„,,,,,\ ,, , ••_, .. ,, , _ , , _.. • . _.• -., , , _‘ .,. _ ,,„ N % s-. //) ... . �c � it /� '—" , I �t W �I �'I' , , • if _ .4 "6 V i!, ,' , Tt � f � � ' t � \ ` 11'III A a ri ! k ,A.;R,..1,,,, ',..,2....._:....A.-'-LA - ' A Arl' lAt " ‘A , fix. � 11, AI 'Ih sill I ': ■ �vs' Ir ' i n.j.. e— 1. y ,� ti R,_ r 7 IAIlii -. ' • „ . IPi - _ '" u . E HT,frs 4, ` tq �b l •,'fir t`i r '`" `,1',, k ''~t t".` !• ' �:�- } R + t ''f r 3,,..4.....,./...; ; •r • EV '[..1:#7,:"to(, Y p i1 1 �"A� !� .i,�:. .• r r p„,• � , 7.1. ', ➢i • P,-r ;: 4::t\: ekb .,g. •� 'j a•.+.-C4°v'trR� i ; a.. t t...'.I x) r5 i+,, .:...'i ,,,.- if 44, ..��a 71 :' `,,qa•-"� 1.4 tf ", :_•,77,.••,''4'` ,. 3't �''• .• isf . A • �` ,) !'1 -� �' A nr's ter.-• { f f: _ � 1 il t 1 ��, �.C� - _r �;�!t !(` ��y��»s�. �� 14,—.t. A�y'Yr�Ec.�.� .y,'-k�' r �. GaI ., '5.4. �' -t. 4=• j;` .. y r^ • a� Faea"6-� . 0Y 0 4 Y.• Y.•! j(rr • 'f i 1.t 'l.LALMr7.d '' y .7 yyam�, 66 !. `'-/`` 1x „l''''.. •^ _ i- f � R •'. ' t ♦ rY ,. 1 1� ;s,,,. gyp• 17 - .. n_ • �1. s Ef r[,,.„.....-.1,.....,;.—r... . .- infj-',t.-.0,1,4".,.....„),Int, .0111;,',g.4_,,,11,0, .., ,..,,;,,., , ..,,_....... ..„,...t)rt ti ,ci 0 s "tc., ♦; "'V I ..i r t.. 9!"h 11 t rb IP° 5 ill'..! • �n a . ti .+.�•I•1� ,)r 't ---, �� i;;p E ;4, [r A. .,' r ..�r - • \• ,t 4F ..:. .', f � aj P-t ;( c 1. I I, -.. q7 y 1•4't.... t t ' ~Ir1 qYp, X. ��! _ 'r x,,. ,/ 4�• .4:4116§60,01 Ati I'Ii-N,'' '•:'11. -71-."'=•?.. �: _ I .«mow 1I+ I. , * ' µ t�c ►. 1 ,i . 1 1 tw t t :' l t « '! {i f "uA�i h't r 1Ik� sy" � *�/ ! et�i f tt• Cf.rrl a+�'` '`' 1 s•',� ' kt'i.,:'f411 11,*=7.i�1.41••4,' t 11'* . 1 ' �':` S �i..' ♦, , _il •�I- "7,.......... .L.'7t 1 ' . :� ;1'Y"�-,G i, 1. • t , t � 7 ,y r ,�,5 s ,rs.► 1 1 S t. H 4 + g r 1- .1 (a }t�it A -.• rY. - , 4 !- + ti 1 Ip p � r. , �. P.o Iq 1: , x�,' Q �,,�,y Via: ' - � ..t'.t•74, 4:3 : � ° `� �„t.s•- ., • , }g �'�, ' >tsb ;a1.,r,t 4 z ., m:F C> T y �- e Y ,go�� • 3 ,f 4 d ;1 f.g t34 • y �',t i -.14 t T / da ' L y . 1, A41 • A, �` . �� tip; Wi w: r f ns �' N yt• ,ter;.-,•-.3 ., f+�' %: • .torweso4 �° zc, Minnesota Department of Transportation oFro. Q°� Metropolitan Division Waters Edge • 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 Date: January 6, 2005 To: Oak Park Heights City Council Stillwater City Council From: Rick Arnebeck ay( Area Manager, Mn/DOT 4 Subject: TH 36 Improvement Options Report to Council At the last joint city council meeting held regarding TH 36 improvements, I presented our findings regarding our review of the"cut and cover concept". The meeting concluded with a request that I prepare a letter to the city councils regarding what further study might be needed and what the cost range and time requirement of such a study might be. It was agreed that the councils would take this information under consideration in January with the hopes of arriving a position by the end of February. • This report is provided in response to that request and includes additional information for your consideration. WHAT DO WE KNOW TODAY? • Concept F will provide long-term (>20 yrs) operational performance for both the mainline and the frontage roads, will cost approximately$100 million(planning estimate) for construction and right of way,but will have significant impacts to the business community if implemented without allowing the business community time to plan and adjust to changes in traffic circulation and access. Construction could take up to 4 yrs due to staging and traffic requirements. Significant utility relocation costs should be anticipated. • The"Cut and Cover"concept appears to provide long term(>20 yrs) operational performance for both the mainline and the frontage roads, is estimated to cost $140 million(planning estimate),but could have significant impacts to the business community due to significant restriction or elimination of business accesses along much of the frontage roads during construction staging and after construction is complete. Construction could take 6 yrs or more due to staging and traffic requirements. Further study would be required to accurately determine the 410 operational performance, engineering feasibility, and environmental impacts of An equal opportunity employer January 6, 2005 • Page Two this concept. Based on the amount of effort involved in evaluating Concept F and the additional study needed to conduct an underground analysis of soils and groundwater conditions, the additional study costs would likely be in excess of $500,000 and would likely take 12— 18 months to complete after funding is secured and contracts were executed. Significant utility relocation costs should be anticipated. • The 1995 Approved Layout originally identified earlier for this project can be modified to provide short—term operational performance (<20 yrs) for both the mainline and frontage roads through the addition of traffic signals at the frontage roads and signal coordination and is estimated to cost$25 million(planning estimate)if all pavement, mainline and frontage road, is to be replaced. Access to local businesses could be maintained however they would experience increased congestion and limited interruptions to access during construction. Construction staging would require at least two years, one year for each half of the corridor (north side/south side). Some utility relocation or adjustment costs should be anticipated. WHAT ARE Mn/DOT'S OPTIONS AT THIS TIME? • • The current St. Croix River crossing project as proposed in the south corridor can be constructed in substantial compliance with the approved 1995 layout. The addition of signals to the frontage roads and capacity adjustments necessary due to increased traffic forecasts are not considered deviations from the layout. A portion of the 1995 approved layout at Norell/Washington was already constructed in conjunction with the TH 5 interchange construction work. At the present time,this appears to be the most prudent and feasible design to include in the preferred alternative based on the likelihood of securing necessary project approvals and funding appropriations. • The local community, due to significant business impacts that are anticipated, rejected consideration of Concept F as a part of the preferred alternative, at this time. It was clearly agreed at a previous joint city council meeting that concept F would not receive municipal consent if submitted. Concept F will remain one of the conclusions of the Interregional Corridor Study as a long term solution, however it is unlikely Mn/DOT would pursue the programming of Concept F, now or in the future, unless requested to do by the cities with a commitment that municipal approval would likely be given should sufficient funding be secured. • The review done to date on the"Cut and Cover"concept by our staff has revealed the potential for significant adverse impact to the business community, water 1111 resources, and wetlands, in addition to the issue of cost. Further engineering and January 6, 2005 • Page Three environmental study would be needed to quantify these impacts so that a valid assessment could be made as to their magnitude. Without a substantial contribution to the costs of further investigation and a commitment from the cities that municipal approval would be granted if the impacts were deemed to be acceptable and funding could be secured, we do not feel it is prudent to commit additional TH funds to this concept. • Since there is no consensus on the part of the local cities at this time in regards to changing the design of TH 36 from Osgood to Norell/Washington,we will be preparing our preferred alternative description to include the layout previously approved in 1995. It should be understood minor modifications to the layout can be made during the detail design phase as mutually agreed between the state and the cities. • Since this remains an issue under discussion and consideration by the cities,we can, if so requested,put the appropriate wording into the Final Amended EIS and record of decision that can allow the FAEIS and record of decision to be amended in the future,with proper supplemental environmental documentation, to reflect a • revised design that has been agreed upon by all parties. Construction timing for any revised design concept would be subject to successfully securing funds for the improvement. WHAT ELSE SHOULD YOU BE AWARE OF? • Based on the significant funding shortfall for transportation, the St Croix River crossing project is now identified for programmed transportation funding in 2025. If the project is to be successful in moving forward at a sooner date, dedicated funding from outside the normal funding process must be successfully secured. • Transportation funding appropriation discussions will be going on at both the state and federal levels during the January—June '05 timeframe. The federal level is working on the 6 yr(may be 5 yrs this time)transportation act. The state level is working on the '06-'07 budget years. • Our present schedule anticipates the FAEIS in March with Record of Decision in April/May. • TH 36 remains an Interregional Corridor and, continues to retain priority status for state funding that is directed towards "expansion"of the TH system. January 6,2005 Page Four • If all necessary approvals are secured and supplemental funding is secured by June/July '05, it is possible that a project could be awarded in 2007. As I had indicated at the joint council meeting,I am available to meet with you any time to answer any questions or clarifications you may have. I have attached sketches of Concept F, Cut&Cover and the 1995 Approved Layout for your information. Attachment • •i i i „ .i/ ' ,• ii;i1.''ill i • -.'t'if11:1(1:1..•:1:t.,i 'll'il:„ ..-....,- • r , '411 :Ili . 7.ii i II I..• , f 1 I j i'I ...: 1), . 1 ,''"'('‘ ' 1 ,..,...,,:..... ,,,,:•=,::. , .., ,...... , ,.',-(■, iii I i!. II 11...,.:11 _ •Wailf...:...z'.. !-- , „i „ -,-•- :.f 1 ly — : ' ! -' i 'A) A ■ ' L., : ,..... 1r- _.• ,, ., ; I, .. itd,' r ..,.. 1 • • ••• . • . 1 ,- !, ..1 •!'i\.1 i c -1-1! 1......--,,, ,, .. ., bel III i ,s,,,i I _i• 1 ,i,:',t. ....._ J , CO , g/i/ I , .. • C .1,,4',.' , _.: ' 1 •,1 di:i Cel: ' i t.,..,---=4,,a.n.-7-,,,, H —I ii!,„,:._.-__H_ I- ' ::';- !' —I — • 9 ------- • ' i . .:::- : • 9° 0 ..- lig' , . :I . 0 Z L ritt--C. I 'I. ' \ -: . . ''. 1 ...., . :„ ni ' ..k ..:1, _.......... 0 ii . 1 . es. i •:.. . .. ...I; ■'... -e' .- , .,_.. .A,0 . ._ *CA r?•...:.. . , \•••-.,i.- t\ -••••=1:-.-•:. P I 'I •••••. -- --,. III A ;;\N,. ,.-7.....Q5 --____ ----- ':•••4r, i-,,,,,:... . X 0 -'4 ' ■1 11,1",1,-,::.--, .7.-; ---.1 '' 14,-.0';II:•,,:-.-",„, :.7 C)0 ...._ -- ./ , ,..q .i.-,, /' ,=' 4. g° .f ,fi 0 Z F:. t i, : .1 Z ,..,,..:,,,,,•T, m 5.- ,. rn 13 1:1;111:ii i_t ! ;==- , 1.11/•,si 1:r:F1 ,- -!:•.,-, :',„A ......„, ,..:.0 s.,..V.I.......i=nveffer,..., : 1/ I I ,i '- r -..•....\\.,,r; - 1. -.,...,,......,..Ncif, lyi. ' ' 1,f.#,,1-1 r .:,:_,,,.1:,.......z.........i.a ,(..,.1.,.,1 1 . , . . .) : . i_ ifi..irn.': • .. L. .1 I leAv:5 ,1" 1 1 " 7 4'1 -.'- P 1‘\[ Of' I.' '■■•• . 1 tif I " - .%1Z‘`'''.1 ' "-• ,:::, ,it4:.):.!.,, 1 ,..,..,...,orii,.!.,,v,_.:.,__f, _ ,. . _.• .....Tr7.4... it--1,_ .: .___,_.4... • - L_ --'±--0 1.-.--=.--=------, __ ■-.--___.. ----= _ _ -1 •...(pi(,. 'AV', I. )..u1.■,..- • Ill m 1!I.,- 1 , . Tr '14-/14.'i•ii,'I I- - z. 1, •'.- ".::-.1iii • t ; \ i WIE • ...). 'C.... 1 i • 11 111.:' .--7,,ia, .-r----- .;„„Qi1;:--:.• ..it• I.,.:-.,-• fs-ti.t ...___./•....'. • st 1g'''''''''''''''''''''' . . - _. 111 __# __i _I _lit. _--111- � D I co + 0 I p I �j-'mil � // �/ /, hl . /! •op ------ ----•--- - — ----,i ��� � v-- Ol'- 1... ,��"' i ;� $ ) i� \� - `► _____./ ill: �\ t f , ), (-1,-,;t_,,,,______,\---,:::—__=-,-.--_it --'''''/-,-, .//f1.1 \,......,- '. .q 'I I a' ' ,.,,,,,...,1 a.1 1 1'\\ '.-.-.-„,...=,i's...-'''', 41/1.--- ------‘-rj._-_..... . 'frill!! ) ‘1 /) _. 4, •�' .,, • ' , + ,IUD, .( y, -\r .1 04, if 1 f• — .. �� \�1)�A-{ .F f �\ \ ,• I .�'✓ .I - \ , I of 1 \ ° 9.p e 1 �4 1 / :1 •-,,,,- --,4.-.4..--,..ka.• , ;\1,1 , 110,. ,.•,_\\\\,. ' ,. \. !I+ \ ----- ,4...-- L '4' ____ , ..ik As\. /..... r \s..)., 'y 4.-i\k\V‘,� �.�.�.w._ h� , 'v ., � . ♦ �vfit , v --� j �1\ `1171\\\\,1\\\,'', ��,�� / • _`Z v' \, •`• bf '4 ; \ \� 1t �MB v ,, ,I, ‘ „,.... 4,6 , \ ,4 , f,,, ,,,„6, \\ \ \+ ! . „ ,, ,, N./ )\\ , - /,,, ‘:;.--4)-----, ,4,'Ik.tI.L0_,..---- • ';‘,10c\.-.i\ %\z‘‘ ,.\_ \\\ ,,-,%=- ---1 •,',1 \...i.'10kA'----\:A\ , - IS/ ,...-... '\ :\ 2. \e/ \ . it* //A, 1\..( ; -,_,_.„. ,\ t , . ,,) ,,, \ 1, ',. 41, \N \ Fli . / - . y, \_ .-_,_1. al i i v A ss.,\,,/I.,, ,, i Is, .. * ,.,....... \\,,,,, ! \_,40/441;:, e\i„,., .. 7 tipr.. ,. ..., :, %, .,,,,,,,,.,-._ , ‘ . ,, . ... .,..\\\\ , \q 4, .: ., i , ..• . ._..., ix\,„,,,,,,,, ,. 4 II 1 / kk '\, . . \ A.,■, 1 •+!,4 //////n,,,1\ A.,\-;\\ - 1 '°° NI'I''V I �) ,..,,...__:O•.ap•.00_ _ za\� 4i. piy h„ v` t,1•r \ H t. ? 1. /, r I; ill ��ti 0411:; �// �} IIII ,� �� A i� !, r"l�. ` t �,� `��`�Ie� --...-✓/l � .. J /�� I Il�jhf I,�i :1 1 i!/?�/ /-�! ����/. - ,.;;.. 4%4114-'1--:" - ,.`\. /f � bJ `' i' I . /-- ii i,_.�w►.ic.....� ��'�,..�- 1°I c it t � I -n ��i/, 're. 1:::_„ate`o ° 1a.„`,, °° 7i+I t1 k \ti +i// /'� j/ 6 /y. �'‘.%r - W .11;9?,, f�`� } II I' i!.o°° o°� t\'i'I r - ” /�//iii j �/� ° ° \� 1. ( , t O�. / - f,l. r '''''-',,,,,iii,-,"' \ . , „ ` `. O �m moo . . , -!r , //,, 114 Y f Ai 2 a ‘ 1 �I'� / rl�r �A n I �t ! / `�:♦ X Pli88$3;X420 111 r-1 r m g e �< aa3$lm j . ♦ . 1111 10 g Z B Dr —7 t a! �� ' t gg l P -• g. cni 8 g i , 1 cm DZ a m m'D °a E a i Z 11`._I7 Y fIml t t • • 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 December 29,2004 TO: Phil Barbatsis, Todd Clarkowski,MNDOT Beth Bartz,SRF Mary McComber,City Co • i- FROM: Eric Johnson,City A. RE:Xcel Park Plan ` / As a result of our meeting a few weeks back,enclosed is a representation of a preliminary plan that has been discussed between the City Parks Board and Xcel Energy for the redevelopment of the fly-ash site.It is VERY IMPORTANT to keep in mind that nothing has been committed to by either the City or by Xcel Energy to actually implement this project.Discussions have been on-going and will continue for some time. • AGAIN THE ATTACHMENT IS NOTHING MORE THAN THEORY AT THIS STAGE. $NESo. I ,- tiF Minnesota Department of Transportation 3 ,dc) Metropolitan Division oFTRPN Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 December 17, 2004 Eric Johnson, City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights PO 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Dear Eric: Subject: Municipal Consent Process This letter is provided to confirm that Mn/DOT is in agreement with the City's position that this project, for purposes of municipal approval,will be processed according to the statutory process that was in effect prior to the statutory revisions of 2001. r1'p p rY • Sincerely, Richard ebeck Cc: Larry Hanson—Stillwater City Administration Don Theisen—Washington County Engineer Patrick Hughes—Metro District Engineer E©tgliMg DEC 2 0 2004 An equal opportunity employer WritCONSULTING GROUP , INC . Transportation•Civil•Structural•Environmental•Planning•Traffic•Landscape Architecture•Parking•Right of Way SRF No. 0034686 MEMORANDUM TO: Rick Arnebeck, Area Manager j-ni S o G not ti 1 r Mn/DOT Fr0� 71.4 �2F s poN 5 C Mtu0T 1° +<- FROM: Beth Bartz J 0% '^7" "'`i''1`L I4r G► Principal +k r AN A-L y 1 s a r, Brett Danner Tic.. "C�k i 6),./ v2 Environmental Planner j 0 v - x.04"4) I 1-1.1> DATE: November 22, 2004 /DO ,,...30-0q SUBJECT: ST.CROIX RIVER CROSSING PROJECT REVIEW OF TH 36 CUT AND COVER CONCEPT • A meeting with Mn/DOT and SRF staff was held on October 11, 2004 to discuss the Cut and Cover Concept (CCC), developed by the Cut and Cover Concept Team,1 as an alternative to the Trunk Highway (TH) 36 reconstruction presented in the St. Croix River Crossing Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) (referred to as Alternative F, or the buttonhook concept). The purpose of the October 11 meeting was to discuss access, geometric, water resource, and staging issues related with the CCC and propose modifications to the CCC to address those concerns. It was decided at this meeting that each attendee from Mn/DOT and SRF would review the CCC independently and provide a critique of the CCC. This memorandum is a compilation of these comments. General Assumptions The CCC has several conditions that were previously considered unacceptable by either the adjacent communities or Mn/DOT, including: • Depressing the TH 36 mainline,reducing visibility from TH 36 to adjacent businesses; • One-way frontage roads creating more circuitous paths to frontage road businesses; and 'The Cut and Cover Concept Team consists of area volunteers who,according to information provided by the Cut and Cover Concept Team,"worked with highway designers,engineers,hydrologists,city and county staff and mi..,to create a concept that satisfied all the PAC requirements but one". One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis,MN 55447-4443 Telephone (763)475-0010+Fax (763)475-2429+http://www.srfconsulting.com An Equal Opportunity Employer Rick Arnebeck -2 - November 22, 2004 Mn/DOT • Significant additional cost. For the purposes of this technical analysis, these conditions were assumed to be acceptable by • both parties. However, these issues will require further consideration as reconstruction is discussed. Review of the Cut and Cover Concept Any concept depressing the mainline of TH 36 through this area will face a number of challenges including profile/vertical distance concerns, the ability to squeeze multiple access points and required safe weaving distances into a 1.5 mile corridor, and storm water treatment concerns. In addition, traffic volumes on local streets as well as the interaction between TH 36 access and property access on the frontage road system provide an additional set of challenges. Finally, construction staging of a depressed facility is more challenging, particularly when it is assumed that traffic through the area and access to businesses is to be maintained during construction. A general discussion of these issues is provided below, including recommended modifications to the Cut and Cover concept. Vertical issues: the vertical difference between the elevation of the mainline and the elevation of the frontage road, and maximum acceptable grades for the ramps connecting the two roadway systems, create vertical distance needs that must be accommodated in the design. Specifically: • The ramp length needed to make up the 22 feet difference in elevation between the • mainline and the frontage roads, assuming a maximum 5% grade, would be 440 feet plus additional length to take into account the vertical curves needed to provide adequate landing areas at the top and bottom of the ramps. The slip ramps shown on the CCC are 200 feet to 300 feet long. Additional study would be needed to determine if these ramp lengths can be accommodated, or if the number of ramps must be reduced. • One approach to address this issue would be to have the TH 36 profile "rollercoaster" somewhat in order to sag and pass under the tunnel areas where 25 feet or more of vertical clearance will be required between roadways in order to accommodate the necessary structure depth and then crest where the very short slip ramp connections are shown.2 Some "rollercoaster" vertical alignments of the frontage roads may also help reduce this problem. The critical areas are where the slip ramp connections are shown. Because of their short effective lengths (one is as short as 200 ft.), the frontage roads and mainline roadways will have to be at similar elevations. The vertical alignment of all roadway elements must be more developed to fully understand the options and understand the potential interaction with tunnel clearances. • The steep bluff grades east of Osgood and interaction with the TH 95 interchange ramps also provide a unique challenge. The CCC ramps east of the government center access probably would be too steep in grade to construct, or will cause a weaving conflict or necessitating a braiding solution with the TH 95 ramps. The TH 36 grades are too steep 2 The mainline depth would be need to be 24'4"—28'4"(16'4"clearance requirement;6' structure depth;2' minimum cover to 6' maximum cover),not 22 feet as proposed by the CCC Team. • Rick Arnebeck - 3 - November 22, 2004 Mn/DOT for the profiles to work together. Those ramps probably would need to be shifted to a • location west of Osgood, further requiring re-examination of the frontage road system design at this end, or elimination of these ramps. Horizontal issues: Required distances between ramp merge and diverge points combined with required ramp lengths, as well as interaction between the ramps and tunnel areas, establish constraints for the placement of these elements within the corridor. • A weaving analysis would need to be conducted to determine minimum distance between merge and diverge points, and lane adds/drops. • Auxiliary lanes could be used to address weaving concerns, but would add to the overall width of the roadway cross-section. Roadway Width/Typical Section: Cross sections should also consider staging and construction needs as well as the finished configuration, particularly when the goal would be to construct a depressed facility while maintaining traffic flow through the area, and are discussed further in a following section. • The future typical of this total roadway segment would need to be well thought out as additional width at a latter time would be difficult to provide. • The mainline typical section should be 114 feet3 per the requirements of the Mn/DOT Road Design Manual to meet safety and design standards assuming auxiliary lanes are needed per the above discussion (the CCC includes a mainline width of 92 to 100 feet). • (Note: if auxiliary lanes are not needed from a weaving analysis, this amount of width may be needed in any case to accommodate construction staging needs.) This cross section width assumes a median barrier, instead of a planted median to conserve on width. A planted median would require an additional 15 to 20 feet at a minimum. • Adequate cross section width would be needed in the tunnel area to accommodate a central median support for the tunnel roof, adequate clear zone from tunnel walls and snow storage. The clear zone requirement for a 65 mph design for TH 36 (as proposed by the CCC Team)is 32.5 feet which can be met by providing 10.5 feet from the face of the curb on the outside shoulder to the tunnel or wall face (which would also accommodate snow storage)in addition to a 10-foot shoulder and a 12-foot travel/aux. lane. If a 45 mph design speed is considered, the 17-foot clear zone requirement can be met by the 12-foot travel lane and 10-shoulder; however,it is still desirable to have a minimum of 10 feet of snow storage outside the shoulder area. Thus, for either a 45 mph or 65 mph design speed, each tunnel portal (one direction only)would be approximately 67 feet from outside face to median support. Slip Ramp cross sections: • The concept needs to reflect the probable use of retaining walls on both sides of the access ramps. 3 Mainline typical section: 10-foot outside shoulder, 12-foot auxiliary lane,2-12-foot through lanes, 10-foot inside shoulder,2-foot barrier, 10-foot inside shoulder,2-12-foot through lanes, 12-foot auxiliary lane,and 10-foot outside shoulder. Rick Arnebeck -4 - November 22, 2004 Mn/DOT • The slip ramps between the walls need to be a minimum of 28-feet wide to meet clear zone requirements. This does not allow for a minimum of 10 feet for snow storage — to • meet this requirement, the slip ramps should be 32-feet wide. The slip ramp width provided by the CCC Team is 20 feet. Frontage road cross sections: • The frontage road would need to be two lanes wide in weaving segments between ramp noses and Texas turns and probably two lanes through the corridor. Turn lanes would need to be provided, especially on major turns and on some of the intersecting roads. This would conform to construction staging needs. • The minimum requirements for State Aid are 2-12-foot lanes with 2-foot shoulders for a 30 mph frontage road. The trail width minimum is 8 feet for a pedestrian/bicycle facility, with 10 feet being the preferred dimension. The 4 to 6-foot wide boulevard suggested by the CCC Team is appropriate. Assuming that the frontage roads will stay in their current location, there may be some areas where right of way taking will be necessary to provide width for a trail if that is desired. • Distance between the frontage road edge and the tunnel wall locations would need to be carefully planned to allow for the construction of the wall foundation while traffic is on the new frontage road (see discussion below.) A minimum of 20 feet would be needed to accommodate an estimated 15-foot foundation "toe" and allow for construction activities. Drainage: Due to the elevation differences between a depressed mainline and the normal water level of several existing or proposed ponds, these ponds could no longer be used for storm water • treatment or attenuation. In addition, at least two existing storm water pipes that cross the TH 36 corridor to ponding locations would be severed by the depressed roadway. These changes would result in significantly larger storm sewer pipe and treatment ponds or other best management practices (BMPs) below the bluff. Furthermore, storm sewer pipe, in certain locations, will be very deep. While the cut and cover option is physically possible from a water resources perspective, this will result in additional right of way and wetland impacts as well as present significant construction staging challenges. Construction Staging: The sequence of construction activities needed to maintain general traffic through the area during the construction period will be complicated and involve a minimum of six construction seasons. While traffic through the area could generally be maintained, access to/from TH 36 and/or frontage roads could be limited for extended periods of time, particularly in close proximity to cross streets. • One staging approach would be to close the three existing signalized intersections one intersection at a time. This would leave two points to cross the TH 36 corridor. Construction would need to start at Osgood Avenue and progress to the west, allowing the drainage system to be built along with the roadway to maintain drainage. • Each cross street closure would construct the half of the roadway system (either eastbound [EB] or westbound [WB] first),then the other direction. In constructing each half of the roadway,both EB and WB TH 36 traffic would be moved to the two lanes of existing TH 36. Frontage road traffic would be moved to the remainder of TH 36 and the • r • Rick Arnebeck - 5 - November 22,2004 Mn/DOT frontage road would be reconstructed during one season. Following reconstruction of the • frontage road, frontage road traffic would be moved from TH 36 to the new frontage road. At this point, one half of two tunnels are constructed the following season(perhaps requiring multiple contractor teams). With half of the tunnel complete, TH 36 traffic would be moved to the completed tunnel portion; frontage road traffic would be moved to the remaining portion of old TH 36 and the process repeated for the other frontage road. When the frontage road is completed, frontage road traffic is moved from TH 36 to the new frontage road and the remaining section of TH 36 is reconstructed. The second side of the tunnel construction would then be completed in the third construction season. • This process is then repeated for the remaining cross streets (Oakgreen/Greeley and Washington/Norell). Temporary connections would be needed to connect the newly constructed roadways to existing TH 36 and frontage roads. • The frontage road sections on top of the tunnels would need to be configured temporarily to operate as two directional frontage roads until completion of all the tunnel sections. Following completion of the tunnel construction, the new frontage roads would need to be converted from their existing roadway network connections to the new one-way system. • Access to/from TH 36 during each of the construction seasons as well as individual property access would require extensive study. Tunnel construction is divided into two seasons to avoid having all three cross streets closed at the same time. Intersection Geometries and Traffic Controls: Traffic movements between local streets, two- way frontage roads, and a one-way frontage road system must be carefully studied to ensure • safety and traffic flow and avoid driver confusion. A number of geometric deficiencies regarding turning radii, intersection approaches (particularly to the roundabout) and channelization were noted during the concept review. Further traffic study is needed to ensure the proper number of through and turn lanes are provided and problematic queues are avoided. This issue could be addressed through further design study, but will probably require more physical room in the roadway system to resolve. Potential Impacts to adjacent properties: Addressing the above issues will likely result in additional impacts to adjacent properties: • Additional ponding requirements below the bluff may result in additional impacts to a high quality wetland adjacent to the St. Croix River. The US Army Corps of Engineers and USFWS have previously expressed concerns about any impacts to this wetland. • The south frontage road alignment from the government center appears to go into the Xcel Energy flyash landfill. It also appears that the tunnel and south frontage road east of Osgood Avenue would impact Tara Restaurant. Further study is needed to determine the extent of these impacts. • Access/Driveway Locations: Because of the vertical alignment issues, many driveways will need substantial revisions even if a connection remains possible. There are numerous weaving areas and other conflict points with free flowing traffic with this design concept. Driveways that are located close to these areas will need to be closed or • Rick Arnebeck -6 - November 22,2004 • Mn/DOT relocated.4 While this design may ultimately have a smaller physical footprint in order to leave existing business buildings intact, this design may also make access to those same sites unworkable. • Construction impacts: At this time, maintaining access to all properties during the full extent of the 6+ years of construction appears to be a significant challenge and may not be workable. Access to and`from TH 36 will also be highly restricted during the construction period. Economic impacts to businesses dependent on TH 36 traffic can be expected during this period. Future Analysis Needs • A scaled layout, profile and typical cross sections are needed to better analyze the Cut and Cover concept. • Detailed traffic operations analysis is needed to better understand lane needs and intersection configurations. A weaving analysis is necessary to understand ramp spacing needs. • Geometric details,including channelization,need to be refined. • Emergency vehicle access must be reviewed. • Air quality is a concern with any covered roadways. Final tunnel lengths should be determined to avoid required ventilation. • Routes for vehicles prohibited from tunnels should also be considered. Conclusions • The general consensus among Mn/DOT and SRF staff that have reviewed the CCC is that it is unworkable in its current state. The refinements suggested above would improve the CCC, but may result in fewer access points to TH 36, restricted access from the frontage roads to adjacent properties, and additional right of way and environmental impacts. In addition, the construction period is expected to be long and access restrictions during this time may also have significant economic impacts. BTD H:\Projects\4686\EP\TH 36 alt RCutCover Review\CutCover-RvsdMemo-22nov04.doc 4 Areas would depend on final locations of ramp noses,u-turns and intersections. • Minnesota Department of Transportation AL/5-1:0 3d6 Metropolitan Division Waters Edge g 1500 West County Road B2 7 410 Roseville, MN 55113 li November 30, 2004 To: Oak Park Heights/Stillwater City Councils Joint City Council Meeting— 11/30/04 From: Rick Arnebeck East Metro Area Manager Minnesota Department of Transportation Subject: T.H. 36— OPH/STWTR Report on Cut & Cover Concept— Summary 1. Review for proper geometrics • Ramps east of Osgood won't work due to grades & merging issues— other modifications are viable. • Corridor width is adequate, but no median areas would remain for green space & landscaping. • All drainage would be diverted toward the river, requiring additional ponding (wetland impact) near the river —utility relocation required. 2. Review for business impacts • Some permanent loss of business access to frontage road required at intersections and ramp merge areas. • Construction staging could take in an excess of six years (two years/intersection) yielding greatly reduced business access significant increased congestion on frontage road. Cost for traffic control would increase construction costs significantly. An equal opportunity employer 3. So where are we at now? • Approvals: • We presently have layout approval for all grade intersections and pull back frontage roads at Norell/Washington and Oak Green/Greely. > With some modifications for capacity and signal optimization, this could deliver operational performance until around 2020. > There appears to be no "middle ground" solution. > We are at a fork in the road. a) Fix things as best we can and continue to search for a long- term solution through the IRC study process and pursue future funding. b) Develop a unified support for a long-term solution and develop a strategy to find the funding. Mn/DOT cannot accomplish this on its own and it will be very difficult to achieve, under present funding scenarios. c) We can make ourselves available to discuss further at a council workshop. d) Without council direction, we can proceed with 1995 layout as preferred, but leave the door open for revisions • (amendments within three years). S T.H. 36—Oak Park Heights—Stillwater 160 140 - Cut & Cover Business Access Water Resources? 120 - Concept F Business Takings 100 • 80 [Not Much In Between] 60 40 20 -Approved Layout (1995) Local Congestion By 2020 - Improvements/Signal Optimization 0 • WICONSULTING GROUP , INC . Transportation•Civil•Structural•Environmental•Planning•Traffic•Landscape Architecture•Parking•Right of Way • SRF No. 0034686 MEMORANDUM TO: Rick Arnebeck, Area Manager Mn/DOT FROM: Beth Bartz Principal Brett Danner Environmental Planner DATE: November 22, 2004 SUBJECT: ST.CROIX RNER CROSSING PROJECT REVIEW OF TH 36 CUT AND COVER CONCEPT A meeting with Mn/DOT and SRF staff was held on October 11, 2004 to discuss the Cut and Cover Concept (CCC), developed by the Cut and Cover Concept Team,' as an alternative to the Trunk Highway (TH) 36 reconstruction presented in the St. Croix River Crossing Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) (referred to as Alternative F, or the buttonhook concept). The purpose of the October 11 meeting was to discuss access, geometric, water resource, and staging issues related with the CCC and propose modifications to the CCC to address those concerns. It was decided at this meeting that each attendee from Mn/DOT and SRF would review the CCC independently and provide a critique of the CCC. This memorandum is a compilation of these comments. General Assumptions The CCC has several conditions that were previously considered unacceptable by either the adjacent communities or Mn/DOT, including: • Depressing the TH 36 mainline,reducing visibility from TH 36 to adjacent businesses; • One-way frontage roads creating more circuitous paths to frontage road businesses; and 1 The Cut and Cover Concept Team consists of area volunteers who,according to information provided by the Cut and Cover Concept Team,"worked with highway designers,engineers,hydrologists,city and county staff and Mn/DOT to create a concept that satisfied all the PAC requirements but one". One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150,Minneapolis,MN 55447-4443 Telephone (763)475-0010+Fax (763)475-2429+http://www.srfconsulting.com An Equal Opportunity Employer Rick Arnebeck -2- November 22, 2004 Mn/DOT • Significant additional cost. • For the purposes of this technical analysis, these conditions were assumed to be acceptable by both parties. However, these issues will require further consideration as reconstruction is discussed. Review of the Cut and Cover Concept Any concept depressing the mainline of TH 36 through this area will face a number of challenges including profile/vertical distance concerns, the ability to squeeze multiple access points and required safe weaving distances into a 1.5 mile corridor, and storm water treatment concerns. In addition, traffic volumes on local streets as well as the interaction between TH 36 access and property access on the frontage road system provide an additional set of challenges. Finally, construction staging of a depressed facility is more challenging, particularly when it is assumed that traffic through the area and access to businesses is to be maintained during construction. A general discussion of these issues is provided below, including recommended modifications to the Cut and Cover concept. Vertical issues: the vertical difference between the elevation of the mainline and the elevation of the frontage road, and maximum acceptable grades for the ramps connecting the two roadway systems, create vertical distance needs that must be accommodated in the design. Specifically: • • The ramp length needed to make up the 22 feet difference in elevation between the mainline and the frontage roads, assuming a maximum 5% grade, would be 440 feet plus additional length to take into account the vertical curves needed to provide adequate landing areas at the top and bottom of the ramps. The slip ramps shown on the CCC are 200 feet to 300 feet long. Additional study would be needed to determine if these ramp lengths can be accommodated,or if the number of ramps must be reduced. • One approach to address this issue would be to have the TH 36 profile "rollercoaster" somewhat in order to sag and pass under the tunnel areas where 25 feet or more of vertical clearance will be required between roadways in order to accommodate the necessary structure depth and then crest where the very short slip ramp connections are shown.2 Some "rollercoaster" vertical alignments of the frontage roads may also help reduce this problem. The critical areas are where the slip ramp connections are shown. Because of their short effective lengths (one is as short as 200 ft.), the frontage roads and mainline roadways will have to be at similar elevations. The vertical alignment of all roadway elements must be more developed to fully understand the options and understand the potential interaction with tunnel clearances. • The steep bluff grades east of Osgood and interaction with the TH 95 interchange ramps also provide a unique challenge. The CCC ramps east of the government center access probably would be too steep in grade to construct, or will cause a weaving conflict or necessitating a braiding solution with the TH 95 ramps. The TH 36 grades are too steep 2 The mainline depth would be need to be 24'4"—28'4"(16'4"clearance requirement;6' structure depth;2' minimum cover to 6'maximum cover),not 22 feet as proposed by the CCC Team. Rick Arnebeck - 3 - November 22, 2004 Mn/DOT for the profiles to work together. Those ramps probably would need to be shifted to a location west of Osgood, further requiring re-examination of the frontage road system fa design at this end, or elimination of these ramps. Horizontal issues: Required distances between ramp merge and diverge points combined with required ramp lengths, as well as interaction between the ramps and tunnel areas, establish constraints for the placement of these elements within the corridor. • A weaving analysis would need to be conducted to determine minimum distance between merge and diverge points, and lane adds/drops. • Auxiliary lanes could be used to address weaving concerns, but would add to the overall width of the roadway cross-section. Roadway Width/Typical Section: Cross sections should also consider staging and construction needs as well as the finished configuration, particularly when the goal would be to construct a depressed facility while maintaining traffic flow through the area, and are discussed further in a following section. • The future typical of this total roadway segment would need to be well thought out as additional width at a latter time would be difficult to provide. • The mainline typical section should be 114 feet3 per the requirements of the Mn/DOT Road Design Manual to meet safety and design standards assuming auxiliary lanes are needed per the above discussion (the CCC includes a mainline width of 92 to 100 feet). (Note: if auxiliary lanes are not needed from a weaving analysis, this amount of width may be needed in any case to accommodate construction staging needs.) This cross section width assumes a median barrier, instead of a planted median to conserve on width. A planted median would require an additional 15 to 20 feet at a minimum. • Adequate cross section width would be needed in the tunnel area to accommodate a central median support for the tunnel roof, adequate clear zone from tunnel walls and snow storage. The clear zone requirement for a 65 mph design for TH 36 (as proposed by the CCC Team)is 32.5 feet which can be met by providing 10.5 feet from the face of the curb on the outside shoulder to the tunnel or wall face(which would also accommodate snow storage)in addition to a 10-foot shoulder and a 12-foot travel/aux. lane. If a 45 mph design speed is considered, the 17-foot clear zone requirement can be met by the 12-foot travel lane and 10-shoulder; however, it is still desirable to have a minimum of 10 feet of snow storage outside the shoulder area. Thus, for either a 45 mph or 65 mph design speed, each tunnel portal (one direction only)would be approximately 67 feet from outside face to median support. Slip Ramp cross sections: • The concept needs to reflect the probable use of retaining walls on both sides of the access ramps. 3 Mainline typical section: 10-foot outside shoulder, 12-foot auxiliary lane,2-12-foot through lanes, 10-foot inside shoulder,2-foot barrier, 10-foot inside shoulder,2-12-foot through lanes, 12-foot auxiliary lane,and 10-foot outside shoulder. Rick Arnebeck -4- November 22, 2004 Mn/DOT • The slip ramps between the walls need to be a minimum of 28-feet wide to meet clear • zone requirements. This does not allow for a minimum of 10 feet for snow storage —to meet this requirement, the slip ramps should be 32-feet wide. The slip ramp width provided by the CCC Team is 20 feet. Frontage road cross sections: • The frontage road would need to be two lanes wide in weaving segments between ramp noses and Texas turns and probably two lanes through the corridor. Turn lanes would need to be provided, especially on major turns and on some of the intersecting roads. This would conform to construction staging needs. • The minimum requirements for State Aid are 2-12-foot lanes with 2-foot shoulders for a 30 mph frontage road. The trail width minimum is 8 feet for a pedestrian/bicycle facility, with 10 feet being the preferred dimension. The 4 to 6-foot wide boulevard suggested by the CCC Team is appropriate. Assuming that the frontage roads will stay in their current location, there may be some areas where right of way taking will be necessary to provide width for a trail if that is desired. • Distance between the frontage road edge and the tunnel wall locations would need to be carefully planned to allow for the construction of the wall foundation while traffic is on the new frontage road(see discussion below.) A minimum of 20 feet would be needed to accommodate an estimated 15-foot foundation"toe" and allow for construction activities. Drainage: Due to the elevation differences between a depressed mainline and the normal water level of several existing or proposed ponds, these ponds could no longer be used for storm water treatment or attenuation. In addition, at least two existing storm water pipes that cross the TH 36 corridor to ponding locations would be severed by the depressed roadway. These changes would result in significantly larger storm sewer pipe and treatment ponds or other best management practices (BMPs) below the bluff. Furthermore, storm sewer pipe, in certain locations, will be very deep. While the cut and cover option is physically possible from a water resources perspective, this will result in additional right of way and wetland impacts as well as present significant construction staging challenges. Construction Staging: The sequence of construction activities needed to maintain general traffic through the area during the construction period will be complicated and involve a minimum of six construction seasons. While traffic through the area could generally be maintained, access to/from TH 36 and/or frontage roads could be limited for extended periods of time,particularly in close proximity to cross streets. • One staging approach would be to close the three existing signalized intersections one intersection at a time. This would leave two points to cross the TH 36 corridor. Construction would need to start at Osgood Avenue and progress to the west, allowing the drainage system to be built along with the roadway to maintain drainage. • Each cross street closure would construct the half of the roadway system(either eastbound [EB] or westbound [WB] first), then the other direction. In constructing each half of the roadway,both EB and WB TH 36 traffic would be moved to the two lanes of • existing TH 36. Frontage road traffic would be moved to the remainder of TH 36 and the Rick Arnebeck -5 - November 22,2004 Mn/DOT frontage road would be reconstructed during one season. Following reconstruction of the frontage road,frontage road traffic would be moved from TH 36 to the new frontage road. At this point, one half of two tunnels are constructed the following season(perhaps • requiring multiple contractor teams). With half of the tunnel complete,TH 36 traffic would be moved to the completed tunnel portion; frontage road traffic would be moved to the remaining portion of old TH 36 and the process repeated for the other frontage road. When the frontage road is completed,frontage road traffic is moved from TH 36 to the new frontage road and the remaining section of TH 36 is reconstructed. The second side of the tunnel construction would then be completed in the third construction season. • This process is then repeated for the remaining cross streets (Oakgreen/Greeley and Washington/Norell). Temporary connections would be needed to connect the newly constructed roadways to existing TH 36 and frontage roads. • The frontage road sections on top of the tunnels would need to be configured temporarily to operate as two directional frontage roads until completion of all the tunnel sections. Following completion of the tunnel construction,the new frontage roads would need to be converted from their existing roadway network connections to the new one-way system. • Access to/from TH 36 during each of the construction seasons as well as individual property access would require extensive study. Tunnel construction is divided into two seasons to avoid having all three cross streets closed at the same time. Intersection Geometrics and Traffic Controls: Traffic movements between local streets, two- way frontage roads, and a one-way frontage road system must be carefully studied to ensure safety and traffic flow and avoid driver confusion. A number of geometric deficiencies regarding turning radii, intersection approaches (particularly to the roundabout) and channelization were noted during the concept review. Further traffic study is needed to ensure the proper number of through and turn lanes are provided and problematic queues are avoided. This issue could be addressed through further design study, but will probably require more physical room in the roadway system to resolve. Potential Impacts to adjacent properties: Addressing the above issues will likely result in additional impacts to adjacent properties: • Additional ponding requirements below the bluff may result in additional impacts to a high quality wetland adjacent to the St. Croix River. The US Army Corps of Engineers and USFWS have P reviously expressed concerns about any impacts to this wetland. • The south frontage road alignment from the government center appears to go into the Xcel Energy flyash landfill. It also appears that the tunnel and south frontage road east of Osgood Avenue would impact Tara Restaurant. Further study is needed to determine the extent of these impacts. • Access/Driveway Locations: Because of the vertical alignment issues, many driveways will need substantial revisions even if a connection remains possible. There are numerous weaving areas and other conflict points with free flowing traffic with this design concept. Driveways that are located close to these areas will need to be closed or Rick Arnebeck - 6- November 22, 2004 Mn/DOT relocated.4 While this design may ultimately have a smaller physical footprint in order to leave existing business buildings intact, this design may also make access to those same sites unworkable. • Construction impacts: At this time, maintaining access to all properties during the full p g p P g extent of the 6+ years of construction appears to be a significant challenge and may not be workable. Access to and from TH 36 will also be highly restricted during the construction period. Economic impacts to businesses dependent on TH 36 traffic can be expected during this period. Future Analysis Needs • A scaled layout, profile and typical cross sections are needed to better analyze the Cut and Cover concept. • Detailed traffic operations analysis is needed to better understand lane needs and intersection configurations. A weaving analysis is necessary to understand ramp spacing needs. • Geometric details,including channelization,need to be refined. • Emergency vehicle access must be reviewed. • Air quality is a concern with any covered roadways. Final tunnel lengths should be determined to avoid required ventilation. • Routes for vehicles prohibited from tunnels should also be considered. Conclusions 411 The general consensus among Mn/DOT and SRF staff that have reviewed the CCC is that it is unworkable in its current state. The refinements suggested above would improve the CCC, but may result in fewer access points to TH 36, restricted access from the frontage roads to adjacent properties, and additional right of way and environmental impacts. In addition, the construction period is expected to be long and access restrictions during this time may also have significant economic impacts. BTD H:\Projects\4686\EP1TH 36 alt F\CutCover Review\CutCover-RvsdMemo-22nov04.doc 4 Areas would depend on final locations of ramp noses,u-turns and intersections. City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 November 12,2004 MEMO TO: Stillwater City Council&Staff C/o Mr.Larry Hansen Washington County Board&Staff C/o Mr.Jim Schug Business Owner's Group(BOG) C/o Mr.Curt Newcomb Ms.Gail Pundsack Mr.Rick Amebeck,MnDOT FROM: Eric Johnson,City Administrator • RE: Cut and Cover-St Croix River Crossing/STH 36 -"Project" At the recent (November 9t)City Council meeting,there was a discussion held on the anticipated timetable to receive information from MnDOT on their analysis of the Cut and Cover possibility for the STH 36 portion of the Project.It is our understanding that such information is going to be available in the very near term and ready for presentation to our respective bodies. Accordingly,the City Council has suggested that a joint meeting be held so that all parties can receive the information in a concurrent and timely fashion.The Oak Park Heights City Council has suggested that such meeting be held on Nov.30th,2004 at 4:30pm at the Oak Park Heights City Hall.We hope that such time and date is suitable for your schedules. It is our understanding that MnDOT will provide in their presentation their overall analysis of the concept including is general feasibility(construction/traffic)and some estimated costs.In addition to receive ting information it will be another opportunity for us to discuss coordination of this Project as we proceed forward. If you could please let me know if this meeting date and time presents significant conflicts,as if it does we can and should attempt to reschedule. Best Regar , c • } r� • City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 November 12,2004 To Mr.Larry Hansen,Stillwater City Administrator Mr.Jim Schug,Washington County Administrator Mr. Joseph Lux,Washington County Ms.Gail Pundsack Mr.Curt Newcomb,BOG From: Eric Johnson,City Administrator RE: Cut and Cover Proposal As you have(or will)read my letter regarding an upcoming joint meeting on Nov 30th to receive information from MnDOT on their Cut and Cover analysis,Rick Arnebeck has provided an invitation to "staff"to have a small preview of their findings.Such preview would be at 10 a.m.on Wed.November 24"',2004 at the Oak Park Heights City Fall. It is our understanding that there will be nothing presented at this informal session that will not be at the • Nov 30'�meeting,as it is only an attempt to provide some earlier information so we may know what to expect. Hopefully you can atte S: lards Cc: Rick Arne ck,MnDOT • A . • City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 November 3,2004 TO: Ms.Mary McComber,Councilmember Mr.Rick Arnebeck,MNDOT Mr.Mark Vierling,City Attorney Mr.Dennis Postler,City Engineer FROM: Eric Johnson,City Administrator RE: MOU Document This memo is to advise about our first meeting to discuss a framework/issues relating to the crafting of a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Department of Transportation as it relates to the City's needs and concerns stemming from the St.Croix River Crossing/HWY 36 Project. The effort will certainly require more than a few meetings and time availability is at a premium for all of us so for this first meeting perhaps we should discuss some timelines,perceived outcomes and perhaps generate a few bullet points for the MOU if possible. Our first meeting will be held on Wednesday,November 10",2004 from 10:00 to 10:45(am)at the Oak Park Heights City Hall.(Staff does have a second meeting at 10:45) It is my understanding that all parties can be in attendance,if this is not possible please let me know so we can reschedule. r S Eric • y ti-.: Ill ,. . . City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 October 29,2004 Ms.Gail Pundsack Northland Accounting Services 5901 Omaha Ave.N Stillwater,MN 55082 Mr.Rick Arnebeck MNDOT- Metro Division Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 Mr.Curt Newcomb Representing the Business Owners Group(BOG) WHY USA Realty 13999 60th Street N. Stillwater,MN 55082 • Dear Ms.Pundsack,Mr.Arnebeck and Mr.Newcomb, During our most recent Council meeting, 10/26/04,the City Council found that a"Town Hall"meeting be • pursued.The objectives of such meeting would be to again reach out directly to Oak Park Heights residents,discussing the following:generally and certainly leaving room for additions/deletions/changes: • MnDOT to provide an update of the total Project. • Provide an opportunity to give a general presentation(Gail P.)on the"Cut&Cover"or other alternative designs. • Provide an opportunity for you to explain your organizations(BOG,MnDOT,etc)positions and objectives,including your positions on such layouts such as the Cut&Cover or other layout options. • City will provide update on RESOLVE process and mitigation issues. • Receive feedback from City residents on the various Hwy 36 layout options or general comments. The Council has asked that this meeting be held during the week of December 6th,2004.And because it is sometimes difficult to try to coordinate a meeting time/date up front,I would suggest that we hold this meeting on December 7`h,2004 starting at 5:30 a.m.Let us leave a meeting location open for now until 1 we can gauge what will be the actual presentation.The City Hall is certainly open. Please let me know if that date and time is workable for you and please suggest possible locations.Also please suggest other parties that may be interested in participating in this program. hanks,/ ric Johns 0 ty A� istrator Cc: City Council Members City Jim Erickson,BOG • tiotMinnesota Department of Transportation Memo Metro Transportation Planning Office Tel: 651-582-1406 Waters Edge Fax: 651-582-1302 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, Minnesota 55113 October 22,2004 To: Eric Johnson City Administrator,Oak Park Heights From: Rick Arnebeck Area Manager,Mn/DOT Subject: City Resolution,04-10-49 This letter will acknowledge my receipt of the Resolution of the City Council. I think the resolution clearly identifies the critical issues of concern to the city. Some of the items are under discussion, some have been addressed as a result of recent discussions and some cannot be completely resolved, at this state of the process,but I think we can come to an agreement on how we can move forward to resolve them. Mn/DOT is also committed to working with the city as well as other parties to come to a viable, suitable and equitable solution for the project. I would like to propose that we use this resolution as the basis of discussion to amend the Memorandum of Understanding that was previously agreed upon between Mn/DOT and the city in 1995,or develop a new memorandum. A Memorandum of Understanding provides the best opportunity for Mn/DOT and the city to develop an agreement on the resolution of these issues,in a formal manner as requested by the city. I will be contacting your office next week to setup a meeting to begin discussions on this matter. Please let me know who should be invited from the city for these discussions. I would like to suggest that we pursue this matter with the goal of having a final Memorandum of Understanding drafted by January 1,or sooner,if possible. • 4 1 0 '4. ,4 z-, City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 October 19th,2004 Mr.Rick Arnebeck MNDOT- Metro Division Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE: Upcoming Stakeholder's/RESOLVE meeting -Oct 26/27,2004 Dear Mr.Amebeck, Enclosed you will find a copy of the City Resolution(04-10-49)that provides the City's current position on a preferred location alternative for a bridge corridor for the upcoming Stakeholder/RESOLVE meeting(s). At this date and based on the information received to date,the City is not in a position to be able to favor or identify a location for a new St.Croix River Crossing and will not be able to do so until the City receives responses and appropriate commitments to its concerns on Municipal Consent and needed mitigations. • Please let me know if you have . 1 questi 1 erely c Johns s 1 City Adm'is + .tor Cc: City Council Members Mark Vierling,City Attorney Todd Clarkowski,MNDOT Beth Bartz,SRF 0 r_ ,, • RESOLUTION 04-10-49 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING THE POSITION OF THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AS IT EFFECTS THE PROPOSAL OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MnDOT)FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ST CROIX RIVER CROSSING AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 36 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS, TOGETHER KNOWN AS THE "PROJECT". Whereas,the City of Oak Park Heights has participated in the recent RESOLVE/ Stakeholder Process for the State Highway 36 Reconstruction/St. Croix River Crossing Project; and, Whereas,the City regards the RESOLVE/Stakeholder Process as an informal,non-binding mediation based process allowing the various factions of the community and others having input into a Trunk Highway layout and Bridge location process to have input and explore opportunities for consensus; and, Whereas,the City of Oak Park Heights has studied the Project impacts from various options that have been presented,including the"NO-BUILD" alternative and Concept F layout,from an economic, planning and engineering perspective; and, • Whereas,the funding requirements to fully implement the Project may now exceed$400 million dollars; and, Whereas, the funding for the Project is to be sought from a forthcoming Federal Transportation Bill (TEA-21)which has been represented to include both the Bridge funding and STH 36 reconstruction; and, Whereas,the City will not support any segmentation of the Project and has not endorsed and will not endorse any STH 36 layout,concept or design separate from the bridge design; and, Whereas,as recently as September 22, 2004 meeting with MnDOT has suggested that the project be segmented into two separate projects for funding purposes where the Bridge portion of the project would be funded and constructed first and the STH 36 corridor through the Oak Park Heights/ Stillwater Business District may potentially be funded in the future;and, Whereas,the City has concurrently provided several communications to the Minnesota Department of Transportation throughout the RESOLVE/ Stakeholder Process outlining its concerns and mitigation needs seeking: 1. A commitment from MnDOT that the entire project(i.e.the Bridge and TH 36 improvements)will proceed as a single indivisible project and will follow the pre-2001 Municipal Consent law, • 2. A full funding commitment and mitigation plan from MnDOT for the anticipated and necessary iutility relocation costs that will inevitably confront the City resulting from any modification to Trunk Highway 36, 3. A full funding commitment and mitigation plan from MnDOT for the reconstruction of the frontage roads and their continued maintenance, 4. A commitment from MnDOT that installation of the proposed Boat Ramp Facility as proposed by the Department of Natural Resources will be deleted from the Project as far as it affects a proposed location in the City of Oak Park Heights or that a comprehensive compensatory agreement between the City,DNR and MnDOT be completed, 5. A commitment from MnDOT that all traffic signals and their maintenance must be provided by the Project or in the future by parties other than the City, 6. A full funding commitment from MnDOT that protects and mitigates against negative impacts on City homes,businesses,and City owned lands and facilities etc that may stem from short-term and long-term noise, smoke, odor,construction activities and/or vibration, 7. A commitment from MnDOT that all excess lands previously acquired,or future lands, and not required for the Final Project,however that is resolved to be,shall be returned to private ownership and the tax rolls with its redevelopment shall be coordinated with the City housing and/or • comprehensive plan, 8. A full funding commitment from MnDOT that includes a complete reconstruction of the Scenic Overlook preserving its view; and, Whereas the Minnesota Department of Transportation has not provided any formal clarification or commitment to the City to appropriately address and/or mitigate these or other relevant issues; and, Whereas,the RESOLVE/Stakeholders process nonetheless requests the City indicate its views on a bridge design and location; and Whereas,the City has not and will not waive its position on the application of Minn. Stat. 161.171 through 161.177(the Municipal Consent Process)to this process and this project; and Whereas,the City reserves any and all final approvals and consents to a later date when MnDOT has provided information and commitments the City requires to determine its final position on this project; and, Whereas,the City wishes to assist the RESOLVE/Stakeholders process in passing along the City's interim comments on bridge design and location pending receipt by the City of information and commitments requested from MnDOT; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Oak Park Heights recognizes the need for transportation improvements that is reflective of community values and that this Project must minimize and mitigate for the negative the environmental, social,economic, visual and physical impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights; and, w. iBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City at this date and based on the information received to date,is not in a position to be able to favor or identify a location for a new St. Croix River Crossing and will not be able to do so until the City receives responses and appropriate commitments to its concerns and mitigation needs itemized as 1 through 8 above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City remains committed to working with MnDOT and as well as other parties to come to a viable, suitable and equitable solution for the Project,which includes the Bridge and STH 36 elements,but that such solutions shall effectively and appropriately address all City concerns and must appropriately mitigate negative impacts upon the City, its residents and busincss community;and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City will finalize its position for a bridge alternative, as well as consider a STH 36 layout,when the City is provided written commitments from the Minnesota Department of Transportation that effectively and appropriately addresses the City's concerns and mitigations; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City reserves its rights through the powers of Municipal Consent or other means as allowed by law,to deny any final acceptance of the Project and that this resolution shall not be construed to grant municipal consent under Minnesota Statutes 161.163 through161.167 or former statute 161.171 through 161.177. Passed by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights this 1 at_h day of October 2Q04. 0011/ .afeW v David Beaudet,Mayor P Atte-.• i ,ric Johnso 1 ity Administrator • } it°111 5e-e- ve -juts I-1 Pin • / / P o 2. • RESOLUTION 04-10-4 9 / A RESOLUTION PROVIDING THE POSITION OF THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AS IT I s° EFFECTS THE PROPOSAL OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION f 0,1 (MnDOT)FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ST CROIX RIVER CROSSING AND THE c(4 IA RECONSTRUCTION OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 36 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS, 7 TOGETHER KNOWN AS THE"PROJECT". r� �`,14 45 V � Whereas,the City of Oak Park Heights has participated in the recent RESOLVE/Stakeholder Process for the State Highway 36 Reconstruction/St. Croix River Crossing Project; and, ro�1 4r. Whereas,the City regards the RESOLVE/Stakeholder Process as an informal,non-binding mediation"/ Rt based process allowing the various factions of the community and others having input into a Trunk Highway layout and Bridge location process to have input and explore opportunities for consensus; and, to-t Whereas,the City of Oak Park Heights has studied the Project impacts from various options that have been presented, including the "NO-BUILD" alternative and Concept F layout, from an economic, planning and engineering perspective; and, • Whereas,the funding requirements to fully implement the Project may now exceed$400 million dollars; and, Whereas,the funding for the Project is to be sought from a forthcoming Federal Transportation Bill (TEA-21)which has been represented to include both the Bridge funding and STH 36 reconstruction; and, Whereas,the City will not support any segmentation of the Project and has not endorsed and will not endorse any STH 36 layout, concept or design separate from the bridge design;and, Whereas,as recently as September 22,2004 meeting with MnDOT has suggested that the project be segmented into two separate projects for funding purposes where the Bridge portion of the project would be funded and constructed first and the STH 36 corridor through the Oak Park Heights/ Stillwater Business District may potentially be funded in the future; and, Whereas,the City has concurrently provided several communications to the Minnesota Department of Transportation throughout the RESOLVE/Stakeholder Process outlining its concerns and mitigation needs seeking: 1. A commitment from MnDOT that the entire project(i.e.the Brid and TH 36 im ents will proceed as a single indivisible project and will follow the pre-2001 Municipal Consent law, • 2. A full fundin g commitment and mitigation plan from MnDOT for the anticipated and necessary utility relocation costs that will inevitably confront the City resulting from any modification to Trunk Highway 36, commitment and mitt ation plan from MnDOT for the reconstruction of the 3. A full funding g p frontage roads and their continued maintenance, 4. A commitment from MnDOT that installation of the proposed Boat Ramp Facility as proposed by the Department of Natural Resources will be deleted from the Project as far as it affects a proposed location in the City of Oak Park Heights or that a comprehensive compensatory agreement between the City, DNR and MnDOT be completed, 5. A commitment from MnDOT that all traffic signals and their maintenance must be provided by the Project or in the future by parties other than the City, 6. A full funding commitment from MnDOT that protects and mitigates against negative impacts on City homes,businesses, and City owned lands and facilities etc that may stem from short-term and long-term noise,smoke,odor,construction activities and/or vibration, 7. A commitment from MnDOT that all excess lands previously acquired,or future lands, and not required for the Final Project,however that is resolved to be, shall be returned to private ownership and the tax rolls with its redevelopment shall be coordinated with the City housing and/or comprehensive plan, • 8. A full funding commitment from MnDOT that includes a complete reconstruction of the Scenic Overlook preserving its view; and, Whereas the Minnesota Department of Transportation has not provided any formal clarification or commitment to the City to appropriately address and/or mitigate these or other relevant issues; and, Whereas,the RESOLVE/Stakeholders process nonetheless requests the City indicate its views on a Bridge Design and locatioi,, d 4,p.1, y�" �� Whereas,the Ci , h. :u•• will not waive its position on the application of Minn. Stat. 161.171 through 161.177 (the Municipal Consent Process)to this process and this project;and Whereas,the City reserves any and all final approvals and consents to a later date when MnDOT has provided information and commitments the City requires to determine its final position on this project; and, Whereas,the City wishes to assist the RESOLVE/Stakeholders process in passing along the City's interim comments on Bridge Design and location pending receipt by the City of information and commitments requested from MnDOT; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Oak Park Heights recognizes the need for transportation improvements that is reflective of community values and that this Project must minimize • and mitigate for the negative the environmental, social, economic,visual and physical impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights; and, .i 0 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City at this date and based on the information received to date,is not in a position to be able to favor or identify a location for a new St. Croix River Crossing and will not be able to do so until the City receives responses and appropriate commitments to its concerns and mitigation needs itemized as 1 through 8 above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City remains committed to working with MnDOT and as well as other parties to come to a viable, suitable and equitable solution for the Project,which includes the Bridge and STH 36 elements,but that such solutions shall effectively and appropriately address all City conce ust appropriately mitigate negative impact upon the City, its residents and business omm • ; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City will finalize its position for a bridge alternative, as well as consider a STH 36 layout,when the City is provided written commitments from the Minnesota Department of Transportation that effectively and appropriately addresses the City's concerns and mitigations; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City reserves its rights through the powers of Municipal Consent or other means as allowed by law,to deny any final acceptance of the Project and that this resolution shall not be construed to grant municipal consent under Minnesota Statutes 161.163 throughl61.167 or former statute 161.171 through 161.177. 0 Passed by the City Council of the City of Oak Park : ; 18tlday of o tto 2004. ii4 ii ttiOt .'d Beaudet,Mayor et: , iiiii i c o s'f, City Administrator • r LAW OFFICES OF O Eckbe , Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling, P.L.L.P. 1835 Northwestern Avenue James F.Jammers Stillwater,Minnesota 55082 Lyle J.Eckberg Robert G.Briggs * (1916-2003) Mark J.Vierling•4 (651) 439-2878 Thomas J.Weidner• FAX(651) 439-2923 Paul A.Wolff Susan D.Olson 4 � (1944-1996) David K.Snyder Sean P.Stokes Direct Dial No: (651)351-2118 Balers G Heeren *Qualified Neutral Arbitrator Laura L.Domagala *Certified Real Estate Specialist Joshua D.Christensen 4-Qualified Neutral Mediator J Q� October 18,2004 Mayor David Beaudet Councilmember Les Abrahamson 6400 Lookout Trail North 13990—56th Street North Oak Park Heights,Minnesota 55082 Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082 Councilmember Mark Swenson Councilmember Jack Doerr 14846 Upper 55h Street North 14520 U pp er 56th Street• Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082 Oak Park Heights,Minnesota 55082 Councilmember Mary McComber 5728 Penfield Avenue North Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082 Re: Municipal Consent Statute Dear Mayor and Council: At the last City Council meeting,the Council requested our offices to provide you with a synopsis of the current municipal consent legislation which exists and which previously existed and now which is an issue between the State of Minnesota and the City hof Oak Park Heights relative to its application to the Trunk Highway 36 project. The City did receive correspondence from Rich Arnabeck,the East Metro Area Manager,relative to this issue dated October 5. That correspondence provided as follows: "This letter is to inform you that MnDOT has reconsidered its position for this project and subsequent to the completion of the environmental process,it is our intention to resume the municipal consent process described in the statutes,prior to the statutory revisions of 2001." • Mayor and Councilmembers October 18, 2004 Page 2 Although Mr. Arnabeck indicates the"intention of the department"which means that the department is not issuing any commitment at this date to the City of Oak Park Heights that is firm and unequivocal and,therefore,I regard the letter as a statement of intent as opposed to a binding obligation on behalf of the State of Minnesota. As you are aware,the 2001 legislature modified the municipal consent process. I am providing you with copies of the current legislation which is outlined in Minn. Stat. §161.164 and §161.166. The former process was provided for in Minn. Stat. §161.171, 161.172 through 176. The most significant difference between the former municipal consent process and that of the current is that under the appeal process laid out in the statute,in a trunk highway project not a part of an interstate highway process the Commissioner of Transportation retains jurisdiction over the determination of whether or not to build in many aspects and that the position of the appellate board under the nra legislate no s a recommendation to the Commissioner of Transportation as opposed to • an absolute binding determination., lso,the appellate board under the current legislation was not given independent investigatory powers as it had under the former legislature. There are a number of evidentiary and formal changes to the administrative/appeal process that were implemented within the new legislation to remov- ' • . more f.ICI• • • --• • . and take it into a less formal or more informal proceeding as well. The provisions for the Commissioner under th uor egislation, even in a worst case scenario,i.e. municipal refusal to consent and the appellate bo• • •enial of the layout,would still allow the Commissioner to resubmit a new final layout and go through the process over and over again. It would seem to me under the former legislation once denied by the municipality and/or the appeal board,the project then as laid out and submitted would be terminated. There are, of course, differences also in the appointment of personnel to the appeal board which you can review in the copies of the legislation that are submitte f . Although these differences may be viewed by some to be slight in terms of process and in terms of power of the appellate board,certainly the former legislation gave the a eal boar the far eater role,both as a formal hearing body and investigative body and a final determiner of the lay out. It is,therefore,perceived to be a far greater asset and tool to municipalities that are confronted with trunk highway lay outs. The City's position,of course,has always been with the department that we view the current Trunk Highway 36 project as part of a continuing process which was initiated back in the • 'I + I � , Mayor and Councilmembers October 18,2004 Page 3 mid-1990's when the City originally approved a layout which had been rejected by federal court. The department's work on trunk highway lay out since that date has been constant and, as Mayor Beaudet has pointed out,the assignment numbers of the project on both the federal DOT and the Wisconsin DOT levels remain the same as they were for the 1995 pro'- Yours v. truly, J Mark J.Vierling • MJV/sdb cc: Eric Johnson, City Administrator • 1�* %. 65‘..0 — pv412- ,/20c3 / , ',TA Jr, "HIGHWAY SYSTEM § 161.172 ,k ht_J;, ;.'tes the proposed locations, elevation, width of lanes, and the type and No. '` -'on of proposed roadway intersections or interchanges together with the '' P ose wa Y eels 61. `.ximate location, width, and length of bridges and the approximate right- , High ,. ,y limits and access locations, where applicable. 'ieved bd . 7. Construction plan. "Construction plan" means the plan sheets, porto« r and „-, ' es, typical cross-sections and supplemental drawings which show the to ex-4. :'ion, character, dimensions and details of the highway construction or city°. „ ,vement work to be done, and which are substantially in conformance vmhsio =. 1 the plan which will be submitted to prospective bidders. P reet n4;` I is of rt ' ,,-F1969, c. 312, § 1, eff. May 8, 1969. Amended by Laws 1973, c. 123, art. 5, § 7; able if.".- t `: 1976,c. 166,§ 7; Laws 1980, c. 509,§ 51. of such t36, No SPY Historical and Statutory Notes ,- 1', 1973 amendatory act was a general au- The 1980 amendatory act was a Revisor's bill, ♦, ty permitting the consolidation of the terms which, in subd. 5, substituted "473" for '' ,� •es' and "boroughs" into the term "cit- "473B". d t o s .,,, 1 ocation y ` or the substitution of the term "statutory 1 2, 29–� . _-"for"villages"and/or"boroughs." + 1976 amendatory act substituted refer- s to the commissioner of transportation for t ,nk high . nces to the commissioner of highways. ler of 11 to sus ,, ` ' ny q f r Cross References nk big ..` ' ,politan council,review of proposed construction,see§ 473.181. 54. "'; . facility,approval of development agreement,see§ 160.85. %f Library References )perry for' construct" 1 tutes e=.i 79. agency c TLAW Topic No. 361. '.354 prin..a .S.Statutes§§ 306, 309. •. )pt.Atty e►:-; �.,.,. M .1.172. Municipalities to consent t, ti ta) Except for routes on the interstate system, no state trunk highway or any , f thereof, located within the corporate limits of any municipality, shall be 1' the te.K . .. , cted or improved in the manner specified in this section without the r Lint of the governing body of such municipality, unless the procedures 1 •t ssioner t- ribed by sections 161.172 to 161.177 shall have been followed by the 1 %sioner of transportation. The highway improvements requiring consent L f a m lii' .; ited to those improvements which alter access, increase or reduce I' ''way traffic capacity or require acquisition of permanent rights-of-way. 4 t- section shall not limit the power of the commissioner to regulate traffic or e state. 1 traffic control devices or other safety measures on trunk highways -.A counti.. d within municipalities. -; i, nattion,i ` ' Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as in any way I 473, IN,-" „,,':..g the commissioner's discretion to determine the priority and program- y,, of trunk highway construction. ,tan for '1' 1969, c. 312, § 2, eff. May 8, 1969. Amended by Laws 1976, c. 166, § 7; Laws whi i '1,c•533,§ 6,eff.April 12, 1980. . 197 + 1: I2 p J I i I `t' ,•UNK HIGHWAY SYSTEM § 161.174 ? ' a f� on. The hearing shall be conducted by the commissioner or the commis- In► '',per's designee, and shall be transcribed and a record thereof mailed to each ( , ' 'cipality or agency entitled to receive a copy of the report. All interested z'' arsons shall be permitted to present their views on the proposed highway j Ii-. :.nstruction or improvement. The hearing may be continued as often as essary. Within 120 days after the hearing is completed, the governing body i each municipality or agency entitled to receive a copy of the report shall {{ g y. ,omit to the commissioner its approval or disapproval of the report. If all or ( s ,y part of the report is disapproved, the municipality or agency shall state the . ons for such disapproval and suggested changes in the report. The corn- i icy Mt ,,,` ioner shall, before preparing additional plans for the proposed highway 1 pri x atty r ,nstruction or improvement, submit to the governing body of each municipals- t s or agency disapproving the report, a statement accepting or rejecting any , ggested changes and the reasons for acceptance or rejection. 3 ws 1969, c. 312, § 3, eff. May 8, 1969. Amended by Laws 1980, c. 509, § 52; Laws ;1984,c. 654, art. 3, § 52,eff. May 3, 1984; Laws 1986, c. 444; Laws 1994, c. 628, art. 3, § 10,eff.Oct. 1, 1994. tcip.t•, "t . i d to 7 $` Historical and Statutory Notes a re'' " '"2'^The 1980 amendatory act, in the third sen- The 1994 amendment removed "and the re- npro'' - ce,deleted reference to chapter 473B follow- gional transit board established by chapter 473" o ,_' ;Avg "metropolitan council", and substituted following "a copy of the report shall also be A "473"for"473A". submitted to the metropolitan council". ,ele�l a ` The 1984 amendatory act substituted "region- late,'i .val transit board" for"metropolitan transit com- Laws 1994, c. 628, art. 3, § 210, provides in f >oin mission"in the third sentence. part that§ 10(amending this section)applies in 4laws 1986, c. 444, authorized the removal of the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Henne- t to e+'. onsubstantive gender specific references. pin,Ramsey,Scott,and Washington. E pre?-'' Library References to ' ;, Highways a23, 103. •opo t WESTLAW Topic No.200. co .it C.J.S.Highways§§ 39, 180 to 184, 186. region' .:, £. the Notes of Decisions general 1 council and the metropolitan transit commis- A` mu '1-,' i lion where the highway project is within the 1 hot .' metropolitan area. Op.Atty.Gen., 229-D-15, ze t ate r,I 'In general May 6, 1970. Jron.% 'The term agency as used in this section and The words "adjacent municipality" as used g Y within this section means municipalities abut- ;te ,R!.: 4, 1.174 and 161.177, refers to established re- ting on municipalities wherein a trunk highway ..al,county and municipal planning commis- is proposed to be constructed or improved, in- tl1 Ili) in the area affected by the highway pro- cluding alternate routes. Op.Atty.Gen., �r, Y g Y P g o re., and in addition thereto the metropolitan 229-D-15,May 6, 1970. )lish• t- .. 1.61.174. Submission of layout plans ion i+ The commissioner shall submit to the governing body of each municipality staff .,!erein a highway is proposed to be constructed or improved, a proposed Y )pos-% g di § 161.172 TRANSPORTATION ,.UNK F' rlin € " Historical and Statutory Notes n. 7 „t; The 1976 amendatory act substituted refer- The 1980 amendatory act specified improve. ,IIe°.r s do ences to the commissioner of transportation for ments requiring consent. references to the commissioner of highways. cipali ons sl Library References ,listructic . e Highways c=,23. ?' . ss� ary. WESTLAW Topic No.200. '"each m C.J.S.Highways§ 39. {,`knit to .7 i `part o Notes of Decisions 1:"'ons fo In general 1 should be referred to the planning agency creat - A joner ed by the municipality under§ 462.354 prior to the acquisition of the property. Op.Atty.Gen,' 3", truCtit 1. In general 63—b-24,Dec.9, 1971. or agen Proposed acquisition of real property for in- ;._ested , terstate or state trunk highway construction g 1969, i 161.173. Submission of corridor proposal F,':$,c. 654 t t O,eff.Oc , ;~ The commissioner shall submit to the governing body of each municipality ,w. wherein a trunk highway is proposed to be constructed or improved, and to the governing body of each municipality adjacent to any such municipality, a report 1980 containing: a statement of the need for this proposed construction or improve- t deletec ment, a description of alternate routes which were considered by the commis ; r.: metrop sioner and an explanation of the advantages and disadvantages in the selection " � 1984 a" of any route considered. The report shall also contain for each alternate, the .sit boa following information: general alignment and profile, approximate points of ' on in tl access, highway classification, an approximate cost estimate, relation to exist- kws 1986. ubstanti, ing and planned regional and local development and to other transportation >< routes and facilities, and a statement of the expected general effect on present ,' ;,,,; and future use of the property within the corridor. Where a state trunk -?' Highways< highway is proposed to be constructed or improved within the metropolitan _ TLA1k' area, a copy of the report shall also be submitted to the metropolitan council. -S.High In all areas of the state a copy of the report shall be sent to established regional, -.4 c-'' ■ county and municipal planning commissions in the area affected by the high >,,eras 1 way project. Not less than 45 nor more than 90 days, or as otherwise mutually „ agreed, after the report has been submitted, the commissioner shall hold a public hearing on the proposed highway construction or improvement at such In genera f. i - time and place within any municipality wherein a portion of the proposed ' 11, term a t t construction or improvement is located, as the commissioner shall determine., is 74 and Not less than 30 days before the hearing the commissioner shall mail notice' 't `met, t, thereof to the governing body of each municipality or agency entitled to receive and in a copy of the report, and shall cause notice of the hearing to be published at' i least once each week for two successive weeks in a newspaper or newspapers' 11 74. t ''1 having general circulation in such municipalities, the second publication to ..- ,' com: not less than five days before the date of the hearing. The notice shall state tht R 1 in a 1 t date, time, place and purpose of the hearing, shall describe the proposed 4d`plat actual general location of the highway to be constructed or improved, and sh d ] { ,r state where the report may be inspected prior to the hearing by any interes s, 'eme ! = 198 'i } ,p .4 4 . ,, Y i § 161.174 TRANSPORTATION UNK HI( shall also contain: approximate right-of-way limits; a tentative schedule for pare final right-of-way acquisition, if known; proposed access points; frontage roads; j out plan, separation structures and interchanges; location of utilities, when known; disapprove landscaping, illumination, a tentative construction schedule, if known; and the e with tl- estimated cost of the construction or improvement. The commissioner shall : : eed in t submit more than one layout plan. Each such plan shall also be submitted to ,' v, .pproved, the metropolitan council if any portion of the proposed highway construction ' _''does not or improvement is located in the metropolitan area. In all areas of the state a . 4'completie copy of the layout plan shall be sent to established regional, county and .-.''' of the municipal planning commissions in the area affected by the highway project. -, edure pt Not less than 90 nor more than 120 days after said plan has been submitted, the.' ': `=invoked 1 commissioner shall hold a public hearing on the proposed highway construe `` .ked by el tion or improvement at such time and place within any municipality wherein a e, 4, a publi portion of the construction or improvement is located, as the commissioner .%` 'ng shall shall determine. The hearing shall be noticed, held and conducted in the ` ` �•:ws 1969, c. 1,? manner provided in section 161.173, except that the commissioner shall mail May 3, 191 notice of the hearing only to those municipalities and agencies entitled to ,r' _ receive a copy of the layout plan. The hearing shall be transcribed and a 1 ":, record thereof made available to each municipality or agency entitled to receive a.e 1984 ame a copy of said plan. Within 180 days after the hearing is completed, the ` ,-'transit board' commissioner shall formally adopt a layout plan. A copy of the layout plan as , ion"in the I adopted shall be submitted to each municipality or agency entitled to receive a =b° "s 1986' `` P P Y g Y ubstantive g • copy of the proposed plan, together with the reasons for any change in the plan The 1994 ame as presented at the hearing. Within 120 days after the receipt of the adopted ' al transit bo. layout plan, each such municipality or agency shall submit to the commissioner •ti its approval or disapproval of the layout plan and the reasons for such disapproval, and proposed alternatives, which may include a recommendation : ighways c=*2 of no highway. Such alternatives submitted by a municipality located within WESTLAW To I,S.Highwa; the metropolitan area shall, upon request of the municipality, be reviewed by ,; the metropolitan council in order to determine whether such alternatives are likely to meet minimum federal requirements. The metropolitan council is neral I authorized to provide whatever assistance it deems advisable to the submitting .` r ' municipality in order to assist it in arriving at an alternative which meets 1 1: minimum federal requirements. If said plan or any part thereof is not disap- , In general proved within such period, the commissioner may proceed to prepare final T.term ages construction plans and specifications for the highway construction or improve ':4 1.173 and ment consistent with the adopted layout plan, and may acquire the necessary right-of-way. If the layout plan or any part thereof is disapproved by any,, 1 '1.175. A municipality or agency, and the commissioner determines to proceed with the' 41'pon the r plan without modifications, the commissioner shall proceed in the manner of the me provided in section 161.175. On determining to proceed with the plan with ' i�of the m ..x modifications, the commissioner shall submit the modified layout plan to th- $.roposal i municipalities and agencies entitled to receive the original layout plan in th'; ember. ? manner described above, for approval or disapproval by each such municipali ..'i'--'' of sai `' or agency within 60 days after receipt of the modified layout plan. If th ,-, or. WI e f modified layout plan or any part thereof is not disapproved by any municipals ipalities f ' or agency within 60 days after its receipt, the commissioner may proceed t ',ed appoi `'r L14 , 200 I=r t n ,i dt i 0►t + .UNK HIGHWAY SYSTEM § 161.175 } foss a.repare final construction plans and specifications consistent with the modified td ayout plan, and may acquire the necessary right-of-way. If the modified plan wnr, is disapproved by any municipality and the commissioner determines to pro- th 'ceed with the plan without additional modification, the commissioner shall Ih. . proceed in t he manner provided in section 161.175. If the layout plan is I t. disapproved, either as originally submitted or as modified and the commission- i io° , , r does not act pursuant to section 161.175, within one year from the date of f to a the completion of the hearing, any objecting municipality entitled to receive a tnd,` copy of the layout plan by virtue of this section may invoke the appellate it ect. `s procedure pursuant to section 161.175, in the same manner as the same might th be invoked by the commissioner. In the event the appellate procedure is ° °;■ ue t , invoked by either the commissioner or the municipality, the commissioner shall j in =hold a public hearing prior to the appointment of an appeal board. Such )nec. e' hearing shall be limited to the proposed alternative layout plans. th• Laws 1969, c. 312, § 4, eff. May 8, 1969. Amended by Laws 1984, c. 654, art. 3, § 53, ,nai tc eff. May 3, 1984; Laws 1986, c. 444; Laws 1994, c. 628, art. 3, § 11, eff. Oct. 1, 1994. da a Jr Historical and Statutory Notes t I, , The 1984 amendatory act substituted "region- shall also be submitted to the metropolitan the„ e,, ` al transit board" for "metropolitan transit corn- council". n a5 7 mission" in the fourth sentence. Laws 1994, c. 628, art. 3, § 210, provides in ve 8` :'< Laws 1986, c. 444, authorized the removal of part that§ 11 (amending this section)applies in ,', nonsubstantive gender specific references. the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Henne plan' The 1994 amendment removed "and the re- , gional transit board" following"Each such plan pin, Ramsey,Scott,and Washington. pted, g., p one sue' ` Library References LI ttio .Highways c 23, 103. <1 ithin 1. WESTLAW Topic No.200. f C.J.S. Highways§§ 39, 180 to 184, 186. d by`; , are ; Notes of Decisions il 1 In general I itt111'� regional, county and municipal planning com- missions in the area affected by the highway nee", project, and in addition thereto the metropoli- 1Sa' .1, I• In general tan council and the metropolitan transit com- mission where the highway project is within the 1.: fin The term agency as used in this section and metropolitan area. Op.Atty.Gen., 229—D-15, rov ,:I§ 161.173 and 161.177, refers to established May 6, 1970. ssa'' a 161.175. Appeal board h '•'Upon the request of the commissioner an appeal board shall be appointed. tnn� ,One of the members shall be selected by the governor and one by the governing ii WI..1- body of the municipality involved. If more than one municipality is involved in ,ig' o tt[' .1the proposal the governing bodies of the municipalities involved shall appoint n th- ,One member. This appointment shall be made by resolutions of the governing pali,a bodies of said municipalities which resolutions shall be submitted to the 1f ;,- governor. When the governor has received resolutions from a majority of the s, pall., Wunicipalities involved designating the same person, said person shall be ed , 'deemed appointed. If a majority of the municipalities which must include all '''' 201 } z lip' 0 § 161.175 TRANSPORTATION e''UNK I disapproving municipalities have not agreed on the same person and submitted -` 3 compel .«.. . such resolutions to the governor within 60 days after receipt of the commission 'dence z. er's request for an appeal board by the commissioner, then the chief justice of ;;"ay be n the supreme court shall appoint such member upon application by the commis.. ,' ¢,.eluding sioner upon five days' notice to all municipalities involved. The two members :e-sires to so selected shall select a third member. If they cannot agree on a third I�,..ceedin; member within 30 days after the last member was appointed, then the chief ffit e detern justice of the supreme court shall appoint the third member upon application of �* of cc the commissioner after five days' notice to the first two members. The three `` 4 :use a re persons so selected and appointed shall serve as a highway appeal board and as ,�F the boi such board they shall choose a chair from among their members and they shall 'nditions have such duties and exercise such powers as are hereinafter provided. Mem z ,Subd. 3 bers of the board shall not be employees or consultants of any counties, the IA ghway a state of Minnesota, or any of the municipalities involved in the proposal:., c 100 for tl ' Laws 1969,c. 312,§ 5, eff.May 8, 1969. Amended by Laws 1986, c. 444. s,i embers *),a perforr Historical and Statutory Notes a ,y hearin Laws 1986,c. 444, authorized the removal of Subd. 4. nonsubstantive gender specific references. 1 : 'peal boi. ;Ian and Library References rtion, if ... III Highways C;:>57. disbursem, WESTLAW Topic No.200. imbursec C.J.S.Highways§ 78. } s Laws 1969, 161.176. Powers of appeal board Subdivision 1. Hearing. The highway appeal board shall, on notice to the commissioner and the affected municipalities, hold an appeal hearing on the .4 Laws 1986. { entire highway layout plan as proposed by the commissioner, and alternates �nsubstanti\ consistent with minimum federal requirements that are presented by the �.., 1 disapproving municipalities. The board shall take into consideration all as , 1,. , pects of the proposal including highway design, economic development, aesthk Highways C etics, urban and rural planning, agriculture, transportation planning, and all £ .Js High other factors concerning highways. After considering all the evidence in the ':"' record, the appeal board shall issue an order approving the commissioner's 3_ ,1.177. proposed highway layout plan or one of the alternatives. The appeal board t: shall be limited in its ruling to any previously submitted layout plan of the Not less v. commissioner or an alternate presented by the community in response to tha , '+- eipt of k commissioner. A copy of the order and a memorandum setting forth the, , high, reasons therefor shall be filed with the secretary of state, and shall be mailed , 'a'ruing 1 <; the commissioner and each municipality or agency entitled to receive notice o ±'•ut plan the layout hearing. If the cost is not substantially in excess of the programm .`. ,1,'. 'ctio. estimates for projects included in the commissioner's current constructio `1' such p program the commissioner shall construct the plan approved by the board y,. ,.!• •veme, ir accordance with the original program schedule. $ .176. I . Subd. 2. Investigatory powers. The chair of the board, or any mem': prove• „s thereof, shall have the power to subpoena witnesses; to administer oaths, • .'` • we not] - 202 1 if' e =l' i I. j.:, 77 T T' , FA I, -' UNK HIGHWAY SYSTEM § 161.177 , : b *t. , compel the production of books, records, and other evidence. The rules of , ' nissi. • 'dence and procedure for the trial of civil matters shall apply, but such rules i ;. 'stice.- =,may be modified by the board when it is deemed necessary. All evidence, r o . including records and documents in the possession of the board of which it iem.'.,, desires to avail itself, shall be offered and made a part of the record in the ( a proceeding, and no other factual information or evidence shall be considered in ! to chi_ ; the determination of the matter. Documentary evidence may be received in the ation ; form of copies or excerpts, or by incorporation by reference. The board shall ie :*cause a record of all proceedings before it to be made and filed with the chair and , of the board. Copies thereof shall be made available upon such terms and ey sh. 1• conditions as the board shall prescribe. , expenses.. Members of the '' Subd. 3. Compensation; reimbursement of e ies,' .', , highway appeal board shall receive per diem compensation in the amount of I Me; Minnesota Statutes 2004, 161.164 Page 1 of 2 Minnesota Statutes 2004, Table of Chapters t)V) --' III Table of contents for Chapter 161 161.164 Final layout approval process. Subdivision 1. Submission of final layout. Before proceeding with the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of any route on the trunk highway system lying within any municipality, the commissioner shall submit to its governing body a final layout and project report covering the purpose, route location, and proposed design of the highway. The final layout must be submitted as part of a report containing any supporting data that the commissioner deems helpful to the governing body in reviewing the final layout submitted. The supporting data must include a good faith cost estimate of all the costs in which the governing body is expected to participate. The final layout must be submitted before final decisions are reached so that meaningful early input can be obtained from the municipality. Subd. 2. Governing body action. (a) Within 15 days of receiving a final layout from the commissioner, the governing body shall schedule a public hearing on the final layout. The governing body shall, within 60 days of receiving a final layout from the commissioner, conduct a public hearing at which the • Department of Transportation shall present the final layout for the project. The governing body shall give at least 30 days' notice of the public hearing. (b) Within 90 days from the date of the public hearing, the governing body shall approve or disapprove the final layout in writing, as follows: (1) If the governing body approves the final layout or does not disapprove the final layout in writing within 90 days, in which case the final layout is deemed to be approved, the commissioner may continue the project development. (2) If the final construction plans contain changes in I access, traffic capacity, or acquisition of permanent right-of-way from the final layout approved by the governing body, the commissioner shall resubmit the portion of the final construction plans where changes were made to the governing body. The governing body must approve or disapprove the changes, in writing, within 60 days from the date the commissioner submits them. (3) If the governing body disapproves the final layout, the commissioner may make modifications requested by the municipality, decide not to proceed with the project, or refer the final layout to an appeal board. The appeal board shall consist of one member appointed by the commissioner, one member 0 appointed by the governing body, and a third member agreed upon by both the commissioner and the governing body. If the commissioner and the governing body cannot agree upon the third member, the chief justice of the Supreme Court shall appoint a third member within 14 days of the request of the commissioner http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/161/164.html 10/18/2004 , Minnesota Statutes 2004, 161.164 Page 2 of 2 to appoint the third member. Subd. 3 . Appeal board. Within 30 days after referral of the final layout, the appeal board shall hold a hearing at which the commissioner and the governing body may present the case for or against approval of the final layout referred. Not later than 60 days after the hearing, the appeal board shall recommend approval, recommend approval with modifications, or recommend disapproval of the final layout, making additional recommendations consistent with state and federal requirements as it deems appropriate. It shall submit a written report containing its findings and recommendations to the commissioner and the governing body. HIST: 2001 C 191 s 5 Copyright 2004 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/161/164.htm1 10/18/2004 Minnesota Statutes 2004, 161.166 Page 1 of 2 Minnesota Statutes 2004,Table of Chapters /30.-t) Table of contents for Chapter 161 161.166 Commissioner action; other highways. Subdivision 1. Applicability. This section applies to trunk highways that are not interstate highways. Subd. 2. Action on approved final layout. If the appeal board recommends approval of the final layout or does not submit its findings or recommendations within 60 days of the hearing, in which case the the final layout is deemed approved, the commissioner may prepare substantially similar final construction plans and proceed with the project. If the final construction plans change access or traffic capacity or require additional acquisition of right-of-way from the final layout approved by the appeal board, the commissioner shall submit the PP Y PP portion of the final construction plan that shows the changes, to the governing body for its approval or disapproval under section 161.164, subdivision 2. Subd. 3 . Action on final layout approved with changes. (a) If the appeal board approves the final layout with modifications, the commissioner may: (1) prepare final construction plans including the modifications, notify the governing body, and proceed with the project; (2) decide not to proceed with the project; or (3) prepare a new final layout and resubmit it to the governing body for approval or disapproval under section 161.164, subdivision 2. (b) If the final construction plans contain changes in access or traffic capacity or require additional acquisition of permanent right-of-way from the final layout reviewed by the appeal board or the governing body, the commissioner shall resubmit the portion of the final construction plans that shows the changes, to the governing body for its approval or disapproval under section 161.164, subdivision 2. Subd. 4. Action on disapproved final layout. If the appeal board disapproves the final layout, the commissioner may: (1) decide not to proceed with the project; or (2) prepare a new final layout and submit it to the governing body for approval or disapproval under section 161.164, subdivision 2. 410 Subd. 5. Final construction plans issued. The commissioner shall send a complete set of final construction plans to the municipality at least 45 days before the bid opening for informational purposes. http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/161/166.html 10/18/2004 1 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 October 14th, 2004 L7) rfr' .6N Senator Mark Ourada, 19th District 145 State Office Building COP V _ £5-"100 Rev.Dr. Martin Luther King Blvd. " A - t, St. Paul, MN 55155 RE: Municipal Consent-STH 36/St. Croix River Crossing Project Dear Senator Ourada, Last week I forwarded to your attention copies of the correspondence between the City and the Department of Transportation on the issue of Municipal Consent as it apples to the STH 36 project. On that matter please let me know if you have any questions. In this correspondence I have enclosed two items, 1) An engineering estimate for the relocation and/or replacement of City utility lines necessary to accommodate a STH 36 reconstruction; • 2) An estimate from the City's Auditor(Tautges-Redpath)on the financial ramification of the Concept F plan for STH 36 now being advocated by the Department of Transportation. The engineering study estimates that the utility relocation costs are upwards of$9,000,000 (2004 dollars). And, according to MnDOT, is a cost that the City must provide. This is a cost that is plainly and without question a financially impossible task for a community of 4,300 to take on. Despite repeated requests, the City awaits commitments from MnDOT that these costs will be included in the Project and not the responsibility of the City ratepayers. The auditor's report estimates that the City could lose, in a worst-case scenario, up to 17.5 percent of its tax base if the Concept F proposal is implemented. This is in addition to the $871,000 in cumulatively lost tax capacity due to prior MnDOT takings and an estimated loss of over$400,000 in utility connection charges. Accordingly, "Concept F" is not an acceptable option for this City and we have communicated this fact to MnDOT on several occasions. The City of Oak Park Heights is awaiting resolution on these items from the Department. The City Council believes you should be made aware of the overwhelmingly negative impacts this Project could bring to our community. As before, is our intention to make you aware that there are significant issues outstanding on this Project and we do not wish to make you aware of these at the last minute. Please let me know if u have any questions, cerej 'c A. J., so. • City As f • rator r - • • Combined Recipient List: Representative Ron Erhardt, District 41A, Chair, Transportation Policy Representative Joe Opatz, District15B Representative William Kuisle, District 30B, Chair, Transportation Finance Representative Bernie Lieder, District 01 B Senator Steven Murphy, 28th District Chair, Trans. Policy and Budget Division Senator Mark Ourada, 19th District Senator Brian LeClair, 56th District Oak Park Heights City Council Members Mark Vierling, Oak Park Heights City Attorney • .. • r t • •; Bonestroo,Rosene,Anderlik and Associates,Inc.is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Bonestroo and Employee Owned Rosene Principals:Otto G.Bonestroo,P.E.•Marvin L.Sorvala,P.E.• Glenn R.Cook,P.E.•Robert G.Schunicht.P.E.• . Jerry A.Bourdon,P.E.•Mark A.Hanson,P.E. Anderlik& Senior Consultants:Robert W.Rosene,P.E.•Joseph C.Anderlik,P.E.•Richard E.Turner,P.E.•Susan M.Eberlin,C.P.A. Associates Associate Principals:Keith A.Gordon.P.E.•Robert R.Pfefferle,P.E.•Richard W.Foster,P.E.•David O.Loskota,P.E.• Michael T.Rautmann,PE.• Ted K.Field,P.E.•Kenneth P.Anderson,P.E.•Mark R.Rolfs,P.E.• David A.Bonestroo,M.B.A.• Engineers& Sidney P.Williamson,P.E.,L.S.•Agnes M.Ring,M.B.A.•Allan Rick Schmidt,P.E.•Thomas W.Peterson,P.E.• g James R.Maland,RE.• Miles B.Jensen,P.E.• L.Phillip Gravel Ill,P.E.• Daniel J.Edgerton.P.E.• Ismael Martinez.P.E.• Thomas A.Syfko,PE.• Sheldon J.Johnson• Dale A.Grove,P.E.• Thomas A.Roushar,P.E.• Robert J.Devery,P.E. Offices:St.Paul,St.Cloud,Rochester and Willmar,MN•Milwaukee,WI•Chicago,IL Website:www.bonestroo.com September 23,2004 Mr. Eric Johnson '! City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd., P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082-2007 Re: Highway 36 Utility Relocation BRA File No. 55-04-134 • Dear Eric: • As directed, we have performed preliminary engineering estimates for the utility relocations associated with MnDOT's proposed improvements to Highway36 and the St. Croix.River Bridge Crossing(SCRBC). The estimates were based on two options for Highway 36,the Preferred Alternate "F"and the Cut&Cover Concept, and two options for the SCRBC, Option B-1 and Option C. The cost estimates included below represent potential utility relocation and related right-of-way/easement costs associated with four possible construction scenarios. The estimates for the improvements to Highway 36 were based on the two-dimensional concept plans that were available for Alternate"F"and the Cut& Cover Concept. Two-dimensional concept plans were also used for Option B-1 and Option C of the SCRBC. With these options, the preliminary utility relocation cost estimates were calculated for the following four scenarios: 1. Alternate"F"with Bridge Option B-1 • 2. Alternate"F" with Bridge Option C 3. Cut and Cover with Bridge Option B-1 4. Cut and Cover with Bridge Option C The majority of the City's water and sewer system is located,by permit,within the existing MnDOT right-of-way. If the Highway 36 corridor is designated as a freeway these.utilities will have to be relocated. As a result,the estimates for all four scenarios include removing and relocating.any utility that is currently located longitudinally within the existing right-of-way. • 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 The table below shows the total cost for removing and relocating the existing utilities along the proposed Highway 36 improvements and the SCRBC. These costs have been separated by utilities that are currently within the existing MnDOT right-of-way and outside the existing MnDOT right-of-way. Also included in the total cost is land acquisition for right-of-way and/or easements that will be required for relocation of the utilities that are currently in the existing MnDOT right-of-way. Alternate F Alternate F Cut& Cover Cut&Cover with Bridge with Bridge with Bridge with Bridge Option B-1 Option C Option B-1 Option C Within Existing $2,870,000 $2,870,000 $3,100,000 $3,100,000 ROW Outside $2,520,000 $3,190,000 $1,660,000 $2,330,000 Existing ROW Land $2,980,000 $2,980,000 2,860,000 2,860,000 Acquisition Total Cost $8,370,000 $9,040,000 $7,620,000 $8,290,000 Due to the proposed depth of the highway in the Cut& Cover Concept,it would be necessary to construct lift stations to transport sewage from the north side of the highway to the south side. Accordingly, as shown in the table above, the Cut&Cover Concept has a higher cost for utilities within the existing MnDOT right-of-way. If you have any questions or require additional information,please contact me at(651) 604-4815. Sincerely, BONESTROO, ROSENE,ANDERLIK&ASSOCIATES INC. Le / i / #7/ Dennis M. Postler,P.E. Cc: Judy Ho1st,Finance Director Tom Ozzello,Public Works Director Mark Vierling, City Attorney DMP,KSE,DDH,File—Bonestroo • K:\55\5504134\Word\Correspondence\Correspondence_Outgoing—Letterhead\Highway 36 relocation.doc p1)'28/04 15:20 FAX 651 426 5004 Hp TAUTGES REDPATH Z1002 HLBTautges Redpath, Ltd. Certified Public Accountants and Consultants INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES To The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Oak Park Heights,Minnesota We have performed the procedures enumerated below,which were agreed to by the City of Oak Park Heights, solely to determine the financial impact of the St. Croix River Bridge Project on the City of Oak Park Heights. This agreed-upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of those parties specified in the report. Consequently,we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose. Our procedures and findings are as follows: 1. Determine loss of tax base ue to parcels previously taken Our previous reports(dated March 6, 1992 and June 2, 1995) identified specific parcels to be affected by this project. This was achieved by using specially prepared half-section maps containing the specific parcels with a"footprint"of the project. Our 1995 report identified 98 parcels taken off the City's tax roll,due to MNDOT acquisitions. A summary is as follows: Total Percentage of Percentage of Market Total Market Tax Total Tax Value Value Capacity Capacity Property Taken Based on 1995 Plan $4,890,000 2.4% $69.300 1.1% The above amounts are based on the City's 1994/95 total market value and tax capacity. The . City has estimated that,based on a 5%annual market value growth rate, the 2004/2005 market value for these parcels would be$7,585,994. White Bear Lake Office:4810 White Bear Parkway,White Bear Lake,Minnesota 55110,USA Telephone:651 426 7000 Fax:651 426 5004 Hastings Office:1303 South Frontage Road.Suite 13,Hastings,MN 55033,USA Telephone:651 480 4990 Fax:651 426 5004 • HL8 Tautges Radpath,ltd.is a mrmber of+u r,International.A worid•wide organization of accounting firms and businrsa advisers. .89/28/04 15:20 FAX 651 426 5004 HLB TAUTGE5 REDPATH Q003 O Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Ageed-U on Procedures Page 2 Assuming that the tax capacity for these parcels grew at the same rate as the market value,the City has lost$871,648 of tax capacity relating to these parcels from 1995-2005 as shown below: Total Market Tax Year Value Capacity(1n 1994/1995 $4,890,000 $69,300 1995/1996* 5,134,500 72,765 1996/1997 * 5,391,225 76,403 1997/1998 * 5,660,786 80,223 1998/1999 * 5,943,826 84,235 2000/2001 * 6,241,017 88,446 2001/2002* 6,553,068 92,869 2002/2003 • 6,880,721 97,512 2003/2004 * 7,224,757 102,388 2004/2005* 7,585,995 107,507 Cummulative loss of tax capacity-1995-2005 $871,648 o growth t *Estimated based on a 5/o annual market value gro ih ra e ti)Based on 1994/1995 class rates loss of tax base due to proposed acquisition of additional parcels related to the 2. Determine 1 s P P planned improvement to State Highway 36. The identification of specific parcels to be affected was based on maps containing the specific parcels with a"footprint"of the planned improvements to State Highway 36 (option F). Additionally,the impact on the City's tax base was determined using 2004/2005 market values as provided by the Washington County Auditor's office. As stated above, our 1995 report id- . 98 parcels affected by this project. Based on the planned improvements, an addition.±` 00 p eels will be affected, either fully or partially. For purposes of this report, parcels +'.-t w partially affected were assumed to be fully taken from the tax base. 09/28/04 15:20 FAX 651 426 5004 HLB TAUTGE$ REDPATH @J 004 Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Page 3 Park Heights is as c" for the City of Oak 1' gh The resulting loss in market value and tax capacity ty follow s: Market Tax Ills Value Capacity Property to be taken based on 2004 Plan $78,109,600 $1,064,414 Total for City(payable 2004) 443,955,200 6,445,927 Percentage to be taken 17.594% 16.513% Band by the state will not significantly affect the City's tax City staff believe the acquisition o y � ' tax levy would be spread over a reduced tax base, which levy amount. However,the City's vy p e estimate of the change to the City's tax rate is as rate. s would increase the City's tax ra An g follows: Calculation of Estimated Tax Rate Before State After State Acquisition Acquisition of Property of Property Tax capacity value(payable 2004): Real estate and personal property $6,445,927 $5,360,752 Less:fiscal disparity contribution (798,048) (472,821) Taxable value for local tax rate $5,647,879 54,887,931 Net tax levy: Gross tax levy-general $2,054,070 $2,054,070 Less: fiscal disparity distribution (112,203) (1 12,203) Net tax levy $1,941,867 $1,941,867 Net tax levy $1,941,867 $1,941,867 Divided by taxable value 5,647,879 4,887,931 Tax rate 34.382% 39.728% 0 ,/28/04 15:21 FAX 651 426 5004 Hi.B TAUTGES REDPATH ! 005 .1 • Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Page 4 Assuming the tax rates as presented above, a comparison of the City portion of property tax of various properties before and after the acquisition of parcels is as follows: City Portion of Property Tax Before State After State Acquisition Acquisition Property Type of Property of Property $200,000 residential homestead $688 $795 $250,000 residential homestead 860 993 $500,000 commercial 3,180 3,675 $1,000,000 commercial 6,619 7,648 Note: Amounts are presented before reduction of state-paid credits. 3. Determine loss of connection charges on parcels proposed to be acquired. The City has determined that 9 of the 200 parcels to be taken have future connection charges attributed to them. Because these properties will not be developed, the City will not collect connection charges on them. A summary of connection charges that would not be collected is as follows: Type of Connection Charges Amount Water connection charges $167,825 Sewer connection charges 96,414 Storm water connection charges 212,521 Total connection charges $476,760 4. Determine utility relocation costs Certain parcels being taken will require utilities located within them to be relocated. The cost of the relocation was estimated by the City's engineer and can be found in a separate document prepared by the City engineer. • • e 48./.28/04 15:21 FAX.651 4g6 5004 HLB TAUTGES REDPATH RD006 Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Page 5 Closinq The work performed by our firm is considered an"agreed-upon procedures"engagement under AXCPA standards. In this type of engagement, our role is to perform procedures designed to determine the financial information requested by the City. The procedures we performed do not constitute an audit on the financial impact of the St. Croix River Bridge Project on the City of Oak Park Heights. Accordingly,we do not express such an opinion. Rather,we verified the financial information based on the procedures we performed. Had we performed additional procedures,other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City of Oak Park Heights and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than those specified parties. September 28,2004 RL87-4 4‘-'14a/ Gfd, • HLB TAUTGES REDPATH,LTD. Certified Public Accountants 41/ • • City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 October 14th,2004 Mr.Andrew Eller MnDOT Water's Edge Building 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE: Summary Report-STH 36 Partnership Study-Concept F Refinement Technical Advisory Group Mr.Eller, I am in receipt of your letter dated October 5th,2004.My office is in receipt of such Summary Report document as distributed at that 9/7/04 meeting.However,the City was not and has not been asked to agree or disagree with the terms or statements made therein.If MnDOT wishes this City to make an official statement or comment on that document please provide that request in writing. That document has not been given any particular standing or weight by this City as such document was handed out at a meeting and utilized for reference in a generic discussion that same day.If MnDOT does anticipate that such document is somehow a formal conveyance and official summary of the process please advise us of such fact and the City will provide its comments accordingly. Please let me know. ,o. have : • questions. mcerely ricA.Jot •n City As•., trator Cc: Rick Arnebeck, i 'OT Todd Clarkowski,MNDOT Beth Bartz,SRF Mark Vierling,City Attorney City Council Members �paeao� • I Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District—Design Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville,MN 55113 October 5,2004 Members of the T.H.36 Technical Advisory Group (OPH,Stillwater,WASCO,Greater Stillwater Chamber of Commerce) Subject: Summary Report TH36 Partnership Study Concept"F"Refinement Technical Advisory Group(TAG) This letter is in regards to the distribution of the TAG Summary Report you received at the T.H.36 Partnership Study update meeting on September 7,2004. The document details the process of refinement of the buttonhook interchange locations and frontage road connections and overpasses. In addition to the Introduction and Summary document sections,three appendices also included are Background,TAG Meeting Summaries,and Business Information. Our records indicate that you have already received this document at the meeting mentioned in the previous paragraph. However,please contact Alana Getty at Mn/DOT Metro Design if you are in need of another copy (alana.getty@dot.state.mn.us). Sincerely, Andrew Eller Grad. Engineer,EIT Mn/DOT Metro Design Cc; Todd Clarkowski,Mn/DOT Area Engineer Rick Arnebeck,Mn/DOT East Area Manager Beth Bartz,SRF Consulting • Eric A. Johnson From: Rick Amebeck[Rick.Arnebeck @dot.state.mn.us] Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 2:52 PM To: Eric A. Johnson Cc: marymccomber @aol.com Subject: St Croix River Crossing- Preferred alternative Eric, In addition to the two letters I sent you regarding Municipal consent and the steps we will be taking regarding looking into the"Cut and Cover concept", let me also clarify that as a result of the joint city council meeting the other week and the strong opposition that was voiced by the councils regarding moving forward with Concept F as a part of the preferred alternative package, we will not be including ConceetlasAjaa rt of a recommended preferred alternative but instead wi be id-1 ••in• a •rocess .n 11w we ... .•• • • -.• • - • .- •• ••• ,• hthe communities on the layout concept for TH 36 through Oak Park Heights and Stillwater as a continueing part of the project development process. A statement to that effect is coming out from me next week, attached to the information being provided in advance to the stakeholder group for discussion on the 26th of Oct. Additional information specifying the process we can use and options available to us will be sent out as a supplement to the stakeholder information on Oct 20th. Since the timing of this information is not in sync with your council meetings, I wanted to give you a heads up of what would be coming soon so your council could be aware of this information during your meeting next week. I will be out of town next week so I wanted to get this to you today. Thanks Rick OCT-08-2004 08 27 ADE STAFF AREA FAX 6515821302 P.02 Minnesota Department of Transportation 04-1101732 �, Metropolitan Division °�"`°` Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 October 5,2004 Mr.Eric Johnson City Administrator PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Dear Mr.Johnson: RE:St. Croix River Crossing,Municipal Consent Process In a previous letter,dated July 8,2004. I indicated that Mn/DOT would be using the current municipal consent proccss for this project. In your letter dated August 25,2004,you indicated that the city is of the position that this project is exempt from the new processes and should proceed under the old process. This letter is to inform you that Mn/DOT has reconsidered it's position for this project and subsequent to the completion of the environmental process,it is our intention to resume the � P municipal consent process as described in the statutes,prior to the statutory revisions of 2001. • The limits of the jroect continue to extend from 150'h Street in Wisconsin to T.H. 5 in Oak Park l? Heights/Stillwater. Under the � P revious action relating to this project,a Memorandum of Understanding was developed and signed by Mn/DOT and Oak Park Heights. I will be calling you to sec up a meeting to review the previous Memorandum of Understanding to determine what updates or revisions to the MOU would be appropriate. Thank you for your patience on this matter in working to get it resolved. If you have any questions,please don't hesitate to call me after I return from vacation on October 17. Sint ly, Arnebeck East Metro Area Manager Cc: Larry Hanson,Stillwater Jim Schug,Washington County • Don Theisen,Washington County An equal opportunity employer TOTAL P.02 OCT-08-2004 08 27 ADE STAFF AREA FAX 6515821302 P.01 N Minnesota Department of Transportation ((pi Metropolitan Division ‘0Fidr Waters Edge 1500 W. County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 (Information No. 651. 582.1000) FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL d (Please send return fax to number checked) Sender (P ase ) o Main Facsimile(Lower Level-Mail Room): 651.582.1131 o Division Staff(15'Floor): 651.582.1166 ❑ MMT(aka ADE)area(15'Floor North): 651.582.1302 o Permits(1"Floor): 651.582.1454 ❑ Dispatch(15'Floor): 651.582.1533 ❑ State Ald/Public Affairs(1st Floor): 651.582.1368 o Maintenance(15t Floor): 651.582.1008 o Accounting/Purchasing (3rd Floor): 651.582.1239 ❑ Design/MIS(3id Floor): 651.582.1308 a Personnel(333 Floor): 651.582.1009 ❑ Right of Way(33 1 Floor): 651.582.1496 ❑ Employee Development(3rd Floor): 651.582.1009 ❑ Payroll (3n1 Floor): 651.582.1593 a Traffic(2n1 Floor): 651.634.2085 ❑ Water Resources(2"d Floor): 651.634.2411 a Design 41):.�i.•• fW"w' ,.. ,. ;:°'.'.' .Y,. b .Wy:...�.. 2"d"F loo ,s 651.6 34. 2 v.."16•tx';2 i a u�o u � �l'', :c + .�fir~.Zu(1?::,•-141 tc i? ef er, J " � r .vL trt:C DATE: k.15 SC3■V TO: /0/49/46 FAX NO. tQ YS9'CSS7 FROM: 7[rG/� t�1PkCA PHONE NO.6S7-5z2-/504 MESSAGE: �1 -fv4 1 '- ou• a„ e 71/ r--' - 44 a f , �4 4j/./1 /w v - � 41a serposcre/ -74 se? ig)/c9c/ .dii.e/ e7Roceen4 /7 4/4s/7 • # PAGES TO FOLLOW: (NAtemplate\faxcov.doe)(2-8-02 Rev.drl) ..a. 9 .. a-y ?m� $t°., .k "'`-O :" �a .ir b . 0 .1"+1 ,• `( S`, '. X '^ � r��� . "` ,` x wt$i.I.uwa.UIPUrNII v t p- te " ,+a w" City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Pazk Blvd. Box 2007 Oak Pazk Heights,MN 55082 Phone(651)439-4439 Facsimile(651)439-0574 facsimile transmittal 6s/ - aas 7 s- ' To: M5 - To��� �a� Fax: r.: ,_,i. — a (o "�7.3 From: e,_,�S� b� Date: Re: 'VIA/At c,.p4 l !✓n «..I-' pages: �2 • CC: ❑Urgent ❑For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle Notes: • 411 t .! 4 t 1.,;...t { i i i .3 i . tostiESO I l State of Minnesota 1/4.1e OFFICE MEMORANDUM Of VW" •DEPARTMENT: Metropolitan Division Waters Edge Building Office Tel: 651/582-1406 1500 West County Road B-2 Fax: 651/582-1302 Roseville, MN 55113 richard.arnebeck @dot.state.mn.us DATE: October 5, 2004 TO: uric Johnson, City Administrator, Oak Park Heights Larry Hanson, City Administrator, Stillwater Jim Schug, County Administrator, Washington County FROM: Rick Arnebeck SUBJECT: Cut& Cover Concept Review—T.H. 36 Based on the conclusion that we should review the T.H. 36 "Cut& Cover Concept"in more detail,to determine its feasibility. I am starting to put the"wheels in motion" in the following manner. • 1. Mn/DOT will review the concept layout in further detail to apply the appropriate geometrics in a larger scale mapping to give us a more accurate idea of whether there are right of way requirements or business relocation requirements. 2. Mn/DOT will review the layout from a traffic operations standpoint to determine if we think any major congestion points will remain and under what conditions. 3. Mn/DOT will review the layout from a business access standpoint to determine which business access points would need to be closed or relocated for safety or traffic operations reasons. 4. Mn/DOT will review the layout from a construction-staging standpoint to determine how the construction would need to be staged and how the construction staging would impact access to local businesses and access to T.H. 36. We should be able to complete this level of analysis within the next six weeks and review our findings with the local communities and the Chamber of Commerce. At this time, we should be able to conclude whether we should still study this concept further and embark on an engineering investigation to explore and identify any issues that may exist around drainage or groundwater impacts. • Page Two As we work on this,we will be making appropriate provisions in our environmental review and project development processes, at this time, to allow the final resolution of the layout concept on this section of T.H. 36 to remain a part of the overall project from 150t'' street in Wisconsin to T.H. 5 in Oak Park Heights/Stillwater. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions you may have. Cc: Don Theisen,Washington County Diane Rollie, Chamber of Commerce Melissa Lewis, Administrator, Brown Creek Watershed District/Perro Creek Karen Kill, Administrator,Middle St. Croix Mgmt Organization S keestri State of Minnesota OFFICE MEMORANDUM of •EPARTMENT: Metropolitan Division Waters Edge Building Office Tel: 651/582-1406 1500 West County Road B-2 Fax: 651/582-1302 Roseville, MN 55113 richard.arnebeck @dot.state.mn.us DATE: October 5, 2004 TO: Eric Johnson, City Administrator, Oak Park Heights Larry Hanson, City Administrator, Stillwater Jim Schug, County Administrator, Washington County FROM: Rick Arnebeck SUBJECT: Cut& Cover Concept Review—T.H. 36 Based on the conclusion that we should review the T.H. 36"Cut&Cover Concept"in more detail,to determine its feasibility. I am starting to put the "wheels in motion" in the following manner. • 1. Mn/DOT will review the concept layout in further detail to apply the appropriate geometries in a larger scale mapping to give us a more accurate idea of whether there are right of way requirements or business relocation requirements. 2. Mn/DOT will review the layout from a traffic operations standpoint to determine if we think any major congestion points will remain and under what conditions. 3. Mn/DOT will review the layout from a business access standpoint to determine which business access points would need to be closed or relocated for safety or traffic operations reasons. 4. Mn/DOT will review the layout from a construction-staging standpoint to determine how the construction would need to be staged and how the construction staging would impact access to local businesses and access to T.H. 36. We should be able to complete this level of analysis within the next six weeks and review our findings with the local communities and the Chamber of Commerce. At this time, we should be able to conclude whether we should still study this concept further and embark on an engineering investigation to explore and identify any issues that may exist around drainage or groundwater impacts. t • Page Two III II; As we work on this,we will be making appropriate provisions in our environmental review and project development processes, at this time,to allow the final resolution of the layout concept on this section of T.H. 36 to remain a part of the overall project from 150th street in Wisconsin to T.H. 5 in Oak Park Heights/Stillwater. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Rick Arnebeck East Metro Area Manager Cc: Don Theisen, Washington County Diane Rollie Watershed District(2) • • • BCC: Patrick C.Hughes Robert Winter Khani Sahebjam • Beth Bartz Cheryl Martin Jerry Larson Todd Clarkowski Alana Getty • 9 ' ._.It- ,,:t. , „, .. . el - . -,,,- City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 'Y')h September X"`,2004 TO: City Council Members FROM: Eric Johnson,City Administrator RE: Costs to Relocate Utilities Below you will note a very straightforward calculation on what the average utility ratepayer in the City would be required to pick-up should the City be required to pay for the moving of the utilities in conjunction with the STH 36/Bridge project. Based on a$10 million dollar cost financed via a twenty-year bond,issued at a 5 percent rate,each utility $ h'Y P > h' bill would have an additional charge of$41.25 for twenty years.This is double what the current month bill is for the average homeowner,including other garbage collection and state taxes. There may be some arbitrage over the life of the bond and there may be some recalculation of these fees based on volume rates,but essentially these amounts would not substantially change.Accordingly,it is quite apparent that if the City were required to fund the utility relocation of this project,the City would be illin dire straits. City of Oak Park Heights Impact of the Debt Load if the City had to Relocate Its Utilities Bond Amount 10,000,000 Interest Rate 5.00% Term (months) 240 Monthly Payment $65,996 Annual Payment $791,947 Total Payments $15,838,937.74 #of Accounts (Residents/Businesses) 1,600 Debt Load Per account $ 9,899 c.'as 1 46 Monthly Rate Increase 41.25 Co r(-4_Scel ("fror- 1 n 'r, i.J4 - 9-41/1/ (I a t in c r CC 41 • vn a tcurlht d(e. Lv-al SG-Di /' RPCOnPM C -C. cAr4i1 awl(71/04 ,14'-e- In t L LL , ■ e� ,+y t�4�' • City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 September 30, 2004 Senator Brian LeClair, 56th District 149 State Office Building 100 Rev.Dr. Martin Luther King Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155-1206 RE: Municipal Consent-STH 36/St. Croix River Crossing Dear Senator LeClair, The City of Oak Park Heights has been engaged in a discussion with the Minnesota Department of Transportation on the appropriate application of the Municipal Consent Law upon the STH 36/ St. Croix River Crossing Project. Specifically, which Municipal Consent process should be applied to this Project-the current legislation or pre 2001 process? It is the intention of this correspondence to demonstrate to you that the City has held these discussions with the Department for several months on this matter.As such, enclosed you will find copies of the correspondence that has been exchanged between the City of Oak Park Heights and the Department relative to this issue. • The City has repeatedly requested that the Department demonstrate its reasoning for the application of the current 2001 Municipal Consent process, as it is the City's position that such Consent process falls under the previous legislation as the Project was already in discussion at the time of the new legislation and that the Project had previously sought Municipal Consent. MnDOT has not provided this City a clarification of its reasoning despite repeated requests. It is a possibility that this decision may ultimately be brought back to your offices for final resolution. Should that transpire, you will at the very least have knowledge that this discussion has been ongoing for a period of time and that the City is not trying to"cry foul"at the last minute. Please review these letters and use them for your reference should you have any conversations with the Department. In the interim, the City will continue to try to come to a satisfactory conclusion with the Department. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments. :::t:::: e, Gym i�J. p / City Administrator • � w • Combined Recipient List: Representative Ron Erhardt, District 41A, Chair, Transportation Policy Representative Joe Opatz, Districtl5B Representative William Kuisle, District 30B, Chair, Transportation Finance Representative Bernie Lieder, District 01 B Senator Steven Murphy, 28th District Chair,Trans. Policy and Budget Division Senator Mark Ourada, l9th District Senator Brian LeClair, 56th District Oak Park Heights City Council Members Mark Vierling, Oak Park Heights City Attorney • • • City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 September 30,2004 To: Mr.Todd Clarkowski MNDOT- Metro Division Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 Beth Bartz SRF Consulting Group,Inc. 1 Carlson Parkway North Minneapolis,MN 55447 Mr.Rick Arnebeck MNDOT- Metro Division Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 From: Eric Johnson,City Admi s r. . Enclosed you will find the City's r- •lutio ;4-09-47)providing commentary on the 2004 Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement.Please review in its entirety and contact me if you have any questions. Thank You 4411 RESOLUTION 04-09-47 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING COMMENTARY TO THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION(MnDOT)ON THE 2004 SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT- ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING/STH 36 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Whereas,the City of Oak Park Heights has been provided a copy of 2004 SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT(SDEIS); and, Whereas,the City has had an opportunity to review such document,the City submits the following commentary to MnDOT for: • For the entire SDEIS and its attachments, any and all language pertaining "Concept F" as design layout of STH 36(buttonhooks) shall need to be stated as PROPOSED. The City of Oak Park Heights has not committed to any draft layout, concept layout or final layout. And,that the City is still investigating alternative options for layout. • There must be language inserted into the SDEIS that states that the City of Oak Park Heights has rejected "Concept F" in its entirety. • • There must be a clear and concise insertion of the"Cut and Cover" concept inserted into the SDEIS. This "Cut and Cover" concept should be referred to as a potential alternative at all points in the document where Concept F is referred. • The entire Economic Impact Analysis as generally discussed in the SDEIS and its attachments, is wholly inadequate and is rejected in total by the City of Oak Park Heights. General criteria for the City's position are as follows: The City of Oak Park Heights was not contacted nor directly informed to provide information for such analysis,nor was it made specifically aware that such study was being undertaken. The analysis does not demonstrate that it took into account the all of the proposed and previous residential and commercial takings. There is a discrepancy between the SDEIS and the Draft Economic Impact Analysis as received by the City, i.e. $35,000 annual tax revenue vs. $41,000. The City is unable to determine the methodology on how these figures were derived. Regardless these amounts are vastly understated. There is no reference to employment losses and no reference to the boat launch • impacts. • There is no consideration of the loss of City Utilities or the relocation/replacement expenses. • On page ES-6,please strike the words "...and anticipated failure to obtain municipal consent on the project". • On page 2-10 please clarify that the speed on STH 36-eastbound-is posted at 65 mph from 494/694 to Lake Elmo Ave; 60 mph from Lake Elmo Ave to STH 5; 50 mph after the STH 5 overpass. • Provide and incorporate into the SDEIS the crash statistics for each intersection between STH 5 and Osgood Ave -prior to the removal of the Advance Warning Flashers. • Chapter 2 should have footnotes referencing the PAC study. • On page 3-6 of the Cooperative Agency Review Draft of the 2004 SDEIS the City asked that MnDOT revise paragraph to state that a signal "shall be installed" at the intersection of Pickett Ave/TH 95/King Plant entrance-versus "if justified". The City was not able to locate this same language in the 2004 Draft SDEIS. If such similar language exists the same comment is applicable. • • The document does only discuss PEAK hourly traffic through the corridor,namely in Downtown Stillwater. Please expand such analysis to include data that utilizes and presents all twelve months, further broken down by daily and hourly usage, so the reader of the document can anticipate low-use of the corridor. • On 4-28 the SDEIS discusses the crash rate at the three intersections along STH 36 are "two to three times the state average".Please cite the State average within the body of the paragraph(s) and cite source by footnote. • Comments made on page 5-2 relative to "could enhance community cohesion with the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities" should be supported with factual data. Otherwise,please remove the comment. • The City has provided MnDOT with an updated zoning map,please insert such current and factual land use map into the Document. • Regarding the noise analysis,please identify whether the echo effect was taken into account. If sound barriers are found to be necessary how then does that effect the visual impacts. Please identify that the project will bear this cost. Noise impacts are difficult to analyze until the actual construction is complete. There must be language inserted that contemplates and outlines additional mitigation after the project is complete. Such additional discussion should also include the possibility of noise • mitigation inside home/businesses. • • Provide in the SDEIS a discussion of the Agreement with Xcel Energy relative to the removal of their moorings. How and why are these being removed.Please state discussion history and cite documentation in appendices. • Provide in the SDEIS a discussion/comments from the Federal Department of Homeland Security regarding potential site locations of a boat ramp and its potential proximity to the Allen S. King plant- security risk. • The City has adopted its own Wetland Ordinance that must be fully complied with.In some instances,the local Ordinance may be more restrictive than DNR or US Army Corps. There must be language inserted that outlines this requirement. (sent via US MAIL- 7-22-04) • Please insert into the SDEIS maps that outline the ponds that lie only in Oak Park Heights along with a visual delineation of each pond watershed source. Clearly identify where the water coming from. • Chapter 4,the intersection of Oakgreen/Greeley is referred as Greeley/Northbrook Blvd. (Oakgreen turns into Northbrook in Baytown,which is beyond the project area). • On page 5-10, Cover Park/Moelter Site(Xcel Park)needs to be in included in 5.1.2.4. • • Delete the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility Park if this is to be the park contemplated in Oak Park Heights otherwise known as the "Boat Ramp Area and/or Park". Any discussion of such park in Oak Park Heights must first receive City approval and appropriate mitigations. NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Oak Park Heights submits these comments to the Minnesota Department of Transportation(MnDOT) for incorporation into the Final 2004 Supplement Environmental Impact Statement; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City recognizes the need for transportation improvements that reflect the communities values and that this project must minimize the environmental, social, economic,visual and physical impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City's comments within this resolution are not to be construed or interpreted as an element of Municipal Consent or approval of any particular proposal for layout or concept; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City specifically reserves its right to amend, supplement or delete from these comments; and, • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City has identified the following list of required mitigations and has previously forwarded such list to MnDOT requesting that •. these issues be appropriately funded and/or addressed,but to date the City has not yet received any commitments 1. All Utility Relocations shall be included in the Project and/or paid for by MDOT. o'ect or in the All Traffic Signals their maintenance must be provided by the Pr 2. � p Y J future by parties other than the City. 3. Frontage road reconstruction must occur and their maintenance must be provided by parties other than the City. 4. Funding must be identified and committed to in advance that protects and mitigates against negative impacts on City homes,businesses,etc that may stem from short- term and long-term noise, smoke, odor, construction activities and/or vibration. 5. Deletion of the Boat Ramp Facility. 6. All excess lands previously acquired and not necessary shall be returned to the tax rolls and its redevelopment shall be coordinated with the City housing and/or comprehensive plan. 7. Complete reconstruction of Scenic Overlook including its view. • Passed by the City Council of the City of Oak Par • �;` �,..�, �s 28th da of September 2004. !i Eric A. Johnson From: Rick Arnebeck[Rick.Arnebeck @dot.state.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 9:12 AM To: Lhansen @ci.stillwater.mn.us; Eric A. Johnson;jim.schug @co.washington.mn.us Cc: Rick Arnebeck; mhughes @resolv.org Subject: Joint council meeting Folks, I just wanted to extend my appreciation for the joint meeting last night ...I thought the discussion was frank, upfront, and is exactly the type of feedback I need in order to help find a solution and process that will allow us to continue to move forward with this project in a way that we can all support. Please forward this note to your council/board members for me. I will be developing a draft proposal on how we might keep the project on progress and allow for the appropriate amount of time and effort to enable all of us to explore the cut and cover option further to determine if it is a viable option to be included in the river crossing project. I intend to have that element drafted, along with other information relating to the project, by October 1'. The three key messages that I took away from the meeting were: 1) Concept F will have too much of an impact on the business community and there is no local support for it to be included in the"preferred alternative"for the project at this time. 2) There is unified support from local communtiy that the"cut and cover concept" needs to be flushed out in more detail for consideration as a long term solution for the reconstruction of TH 36 betrween Osgood and TH 5(at grade intersections are not a viable long term solution). A long term solution for this segment needs to be addressed up front as a part of the river • crossing project. 3) We all need to recognize the political realities of funding and the critical need to have unified support for this project if we hope to be at all succussful in competing for project funding in these time of scarce resources and the overwhelming needs that exist throughout our whole highway system. I will regard this e-mail as a summary of the feedback I received at our meeting and will include it as part of the public comment process for this project and I certainly encourage you to do so as part of your official comments on the EIS if you so desire. If you, or those attending the meeting feel I did not represent the key messages correctly, please let me know and I will make the appropriate corrections. Again ..thank you for arranging the meeting...I continue to enjoy working with the local communites on this project....and I always enjoy a lively discussion! Rick r - 09/28/04 15:20 FAX 651 426 5004 HLB TAUTGES REDPATH [d]002 SH LB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. Certified Public Accountants and Consultants INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES To The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Oak Park Heights,Minnesota We have performed the procedures enumerated below, which were agreed to by the City of Oak Park Heights, solely to determine the financial impact of the St. Croix River Bridge Project on the City of Oak Park Heights. This agreed-upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of those parties specified in the report. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the • procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose. Our procedures and findings are as follows: 1. Determine loss of tax base due to parcelspreviously taken Our previous reports(dated March 6, 1992 and June 2, 1995) identified specific parcels to be affected by this project. This was achieved by using specially prepared half-section maps containing the specific parcels with a"footprint"of the project. Our 1995 report identified 98 parcels taken off the City's tax roll,due to MNDOT acquisitions. A summary is as follows: Total Percentage of Percentage of Market Total Market Tax Total Tax Value Value Capacity Capacity Property Taken Based on 1995 Plan $4,890,000 2.4% $69.300 1.1% The above amounts are based on the City's 1994/95 total market value and tax capacity. The City has estimated that,based on a 5%annual market value growth rate, the 2004/2005 market value for these parcels would be$7,585,994. White Bear Lake Office:4810 White Bear Parkway,White Bear Lake,Minnesota 55110,USA Telephone:651 426 7000 Fax 651 426 5004 Hastings Office:1303 South Frontage Road,Suite 13,Hastings,MN 55033.USA Telephone!651 480 4990 Fax:651 426 5004 HW Tautges Redpath,Ltd.is a member of i i;International. A worldwide orgenaetion of accounting firms snd business sdvisers. 09/28/04 15:20 FAX 651 426 5004 HLB TAUTGES REDPATH Gil 003 • Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Page 2 Assuming that the tax capacity for these parcels grew at the same rate as the market value,the City has lost$871,648 of tax capacity relating to these parcels from 1 995-2005 as shown below: Total Market Tax Year Value Capacity(l) 1994/1995 $4,890,000 $69,300 1995/1996* 5,134,500 72,765 1996/1997 * 5,391,225 76,403 1997/1998 * 5,660,786 80,223 1998/1999* 5,943,826 84,235 2000/2001 * 6,241,017 88,446 2001/2002 * 6,553,068 92,869 2002/2003 6,880,721 97,512 2003/2004* 7,224,757 102,388 2004/2005 * 7,585,995 107,507 Cummutativc loss of tax capacity- 1995-2005 $871,648 *Estimated based on a 5%annual market value growth race (I)Based on 1994/1995 class rates 2. Determine loss of tax base due to proposed acquisition of additional parcels related to the Planned improvement to State Highway 36. The identification of specific parcels to be affected was based on maps containing the specific parcels with a"footprint"of the planned improvements to State Highway 36 (option F). Additionally,the impact on the City's tax base was determined using 2004/2005 market values as provided by the Washington County Auditor's office. As stated above, our 1995 report id• •. 98 parcels affected by this project. Based on the planned improvements, an addition.ir00 p• eels will be affected, either fully or partially. For purposes of this report,parcels i-t w. partially affected were assumed to be fully taken from the tax base. • 09/28/04 15:20 FAX 651 426 5004 HLB TAUTGES REDPATH 1131004 Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Page 3 The resulting loss in market value and tax capacity for the City of Oak Park Heights is as follows: Market Tax Value Capacity Property to be taken based on 2004 Plan $78,109,600 $1,064,414 Total for City(payable 2004) 443,955,200 6,445,927 Percentage to be taken 17.594% 16.513% City staff believe the acquisition of land by the state will not significantly affect the City's tax levy amount. However,the City's tax levy would be spread over a reduced tax base, which would increase the City's tax rate. An estimate of the change to the City's tax rate is as follows: • Calculation of Estimated Tax Rate Before State After State Acquisition Acquisition of Property of Property Tax capacity value(payable 2004): Real estate and personal property $6,445,927 $5,360,752 Less:fiscal disparity contribution (798,048) (472,821) Taxable value for local tax rate $5,647,879 $4,887,931 Net tax levy: Gross tax levy-general $2,054,070 $2,054,070 Less: fiscal disparity distribution (112,203) (112,203) Net tax levy $1,941,867 $1,941,367 Net tax levy $1,941,867 $1,941,867 Divided by taxable value 5,647,879 4,887,931 Tax rate 34.382% 39.728% • 09/28/04 15:21 FAX 651 426 5004 HLB TAUTGES REDPATH 1ij005 Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Page 4 Assuming the tax rates as presented above, a comparison of the City portion of property tax of various properties before and after the acquisition of parcels is as follows: City Portion of Property Tax Before State After State Acquisition Acquisition Property Tye of Property of Property $200,000 residential homestead $688 $795 $250,000 residential homestead 860 993 $500,000 commercial 3,180 3,675 $1,000,000 commercial 6,619 7,648 Notc: Amounts are presented before reduction of state-paid credits. • 3. Determine loss of connection charges on parcels proposed to be acquired. The City has determined that 9 of the 200 parcels to be taken have future connection charges attributed to them. Because these properties will not be developed,the City will not collect connection charges on them. A summary of connection charges that would not be collected is as follows: Type of Connection Charges Amount Water connection charges $167,825 Sewer connection charges 96,414 Storm water connection charges 212,521 Total connection charges $476,760 4. Determine utility relocation costs Certain parcels being taken will require utilities located within them to be relocated. The cost of the relocation was estimated by the City's engineer and can be found in a separate document prepared by the City engineer. M9/28/04 15:21 FAX 426 5004 HLB TAUTGES REDPATH ij 006 dent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Independent � P Page 5 Closing The work performed by our firm is considered an"agreed-upon procedures"engagement under AICPA standards. In this type of engagement, our role is to perform procedures designed to determine the financial information requested by the City. The proce dures we p erformed do not constitute an audit on the financial impact of the St. Croix River Bridge Project on the City of Oak Park Heights. Accordingly,we do not express such an opinion. Rather,we verified the information based on the procedures we performed. Had we performed additional financial ui fo P P procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been rep orted to y ou. the City of Oak Park Heights and is use of €h This report is intended solely for the information and us tY not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than those specified parties. September 28,2004 Gg .r /e4A, c- d HLB TAUTGES REDPATII, LTD. i • Certified Public Accountants • Bonestroo,Rosene,Anderlik and Associates,Inc.is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Bonestroo and Employee Owned Rosene Principals:Otto G.Bonestroo,P.E.• Marvin L.Sorvala,PE.• Glenn R.Cook,R.E.• Robert G.Schunicht,P.E.• ■ Jerry A.Bourdon,P.E.• Mark A.Hanson,P.E. Anderlik & Senior Consultants:Robert W.Rosene,P.E.• Joseph C.Anderlik,RE.• Richard E.Turner,PE.• Susan M.Eberlin,C.P.A. 40 Associates Associate Principals:Keith A.Gordon,P.E.• Robert R.Pfefferle,P.E.• Richard W.Foster,R.E.•David O.Loskota,P.E.• VV Michael T.Rautmann,RE.• Ted K.Field,RE.• Kenneth R Anderson,PE.• Mark R.Rolfs,P.E.• David A.Bonestroo,M.B.A.• Engineers&Architects Sidney R Williamson,RE.,L.S.•Agnes M.Ring,M.B.A.• Allan Rick Schmidt,PE.• Thomas W Peterson,PE.• g James R.Maland,R.E.• Miles B.Jensen,P.E.• L.Phillip Gravel III,R.E.• Daniel J.Edgerton,P.E.• Ismael Martinez,P.E.• Thomas A.Syfko,PE.•Sheldon J.Johnson• Dale A.Grove,P.E.• Thomas A.Roushar,R.E.• Robert J.Devery,R.E. Offices:St.Paul,St.Cloud,Rochester and Willmar,MN• Milwaukee,WI• Chicago,IL Website:www.bonestroo.com September 23, 2004 Mr. Eric Johnson City Administrator City f O k P t Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd., P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082-2007 Re: Highway 36 Utility Relocation BRA File No. 55-04-134 Dear Eric: As directed, we have performed preliminary engineering estimates for the utility relocations • associated with MnDOT's proposed improvements to Highway'36 and the St. Croix River Bridge Crossing (SCRBC). The estimates were based on two options for Highway 36, the Preferred Alternate "F" and the Cut& Cover Concept, and two options for the SCRBC, Option B-1 and Option C. The cost estimates included below represent potential utility relocation and related right-of-way/easement costs associated with four possible construction scenarios. The estimates for the improvements to Highway 36 were based on the two-dimensional concept plans that were available for Alternate "F"and the Cut & Cover Concept. Two-dimensional concept plans were also used for Option B-1 and Option C of the SCRBC. With these options, the preliminary utility relocation cost estimates were calculated for the following four scenarios: 1. Alternate"F" with Bridge Option B-1 2. Alternate "F" with Bridge Option C 3. Cut and Cover with Bridge Option B-1 4. Cut and Cover with Bridge Option C The majority of the City's water and sewer system is located, by permit, within the existing MnDOT right-of-way. If the Highway 36 corridor is designated as a freeway these utilities will have to be relocated. As a result, the estimates for all four scenarios include removing and relocating any utility that is currently located longitudinally within the existing right-of-way. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 The table below shows the total cost for removing and relocating the existing utilities along the • proposed Highway 36 improvements and the SCRBC. These costs have been separated by utilities that are currently within the existing MnDOT right-of-way and outside the existing MnDOT right-of-way. Also included in the total cost is land acquisition for right-of-way and/or easements that will be required for relocation of the utilities that are currently in the existing MnDOT right-of-way. Alternate F Alternate F Cut&Cover Cut & Cover with Bridge with Bridge with Bridge with Bridge Option B-1 Option C Option B-1 Option C Within Existing $2,870,000 $2,870,000 $3,100,000 $3,100,000 ROW Outside $2,520,000 $3,190,000 $1,660,000 $2,330,000 Existing ROW Land $2,980,000 $2,980,000 2,860,000 2,860,000 Acquisition Total Cost $8,370,000 $9,040,000 $7,620,000 $8,290,000 Due to the proposed depth of the highway in the Cut& Cover Concept, it would be necessary to construct lift stations to transport sewage from the north side of the highway to the south side. Accordingly, as shown in the table above, the Cut& Cover Concept has a higher cost for utilities within the existing MnDOT right-of-way. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (651) 604-4815. Sincerely, BONESTROO,ROSENE, ANDERLIK&ASSOCIATES INC. Dennis M. Postler, P.E. Cc: Judy Holst,Finance Director Tom Ozzello,Public Works Director Mark Vierling, City Attorney DMP, KSE, DDH,File—Bonestroo K:\55\5504134\Word\Correspondence\Correspondence_Outgoing_Letterhead\Highway 36 relocation.doc 09/28/04 15:20 FAX 651 426 5004 HLB TAUTGES REDPATH IJ001 r . Fax message from HLBTautges Redpath, Ltd. Certified Public Accountants and Consultants From: David Blumberg Date: September 28, 2004 4:18 PM To: Eric Johnson Fax No: 651.439.0574 Company: City of Oak Park Heights Total number of pages: 6 COMMENTS: Final Copy of Bridge Study • Disclaimer; This material is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is specifically addressed and • should not be read by,or delivered to,any other person.If you have received this fax by error,please notify us immediately.If there are any errors,please phone us immediately(collect if necessary). 4810 White Bear Parkway,White Bear Lake,Minnesota 55110,USA. Telephone: 651 426 7000 Fax: 651 426 5004 HLB Tautgas Redpath,Ltd.Is a member of IILB International.A world-wide organization of accounting firms and business advisers. r , ' , 1 , l� Minnesota Department of Transportation �" Memo Metro Department of Transportation Office Tel: 651-582-1406 Waters Edge Fax: 651-582-1302 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, Minnesota 55113 oaft4'00, rea54 1 September 16,2004 To: Oak Park Heights/Stillwater Council Members 410 o,,,.k 1 4,i,/-- le ar h%-• k ` Washington County Commissioners t: iv/ . ,,r- 0,ty• " From: Rick Arnebeck g at„._,L3,,,e),-) Metro District, East Area Manager ,a w�,`,ti 74 is 0.p r tTr Subject: Joint Council Meeting Amy'nI• MH bo'r etetty5 hC k dlle;k v nv.'.b.4s. • Thank you for agreeing to meet jointly regarding the St Croix River Crossing project. We are coming to some critical decisions in the project development process for this project and I need your input and guidance regarding some decisions that our agency must make soon. Listed below are four items that I would like to discuss with you at this meeting: 1. Municipal consent process A final decision on whether this project will be submitted under the old municipal consent law or the current law has yet to be made. I will give a brief explanation of each process. It is Oak Park Height's position that this project should be subject to the old process. Since this involves approvals by both cities and since it also involves county highways,it would be very helpful for me to get this decision finalized within Mn/DOT,if I knew that there was a consensus position of the local governments. 2. TH 36 Design options As indicated by both City councils,there is concern with the anticipated impacts 0 on the business community along TH 36 if"Concept F"were to be constructed F , .. 1 Page Two and we have been requested to consider other options including a"cut and cover"concept. I will briefly review the previous concepts that were developed in the Partnership Study, the concept that was previously approved as a part of the 1995 project effort, and the"cut and cover"concept. These concepts are provided as an attachment to this memo for your review prior to the meeting I will present three options and their implications for discussion. Your advice and guidance on which approach seems to be the best would be greatly appreciated. 3. Project status and funding implications I will provide a status report of where we are in the overall project development process, issues that remain to be resolved or are being worked on, and will provide you with an overview of the funding situation for this project. Any advice you can provide on how we might work together for solicitation of funding for this project would very helpful. • • , .f ,f 14; SHIP STUDY IIJ FINAL REPORT ..i Prepared for MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ..., -r •-•,,,i,, .... ., 41 s. ,_ __ — ,...a,.. .."'" '''' x. _ '''---, , ---- , — .•.- -......„-''... 43 '".0172vie ..x- .1447411100., ' 01' * ....., -, ,-, _.,_ ' .4•2:47;r: ' •?-4;.*„..., ON , • .... ,---., 0-- ...Jr // . '-'2- 41110fte7V e ..,„, •] ] In nets ip I Partnership h at wi th CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS ..-,,?, ,.......i„. . ti , L._ CITY OF STILLWATER _ -..,..z....H., WASHINGTON COUNTY -- t f LI ° ------"'----- --1 „.0 e. ,-,--, -- r 4_, I ,----) , ...... 3 (c' Ptmaled by 1 iSRFCONSLLTING G R OUP, INC DECEMBER 2002 ti ____ ,• . , . -. . ,1 • if, . x , , ... O 0 . . ! >. .. cc ii 4_, vs It s.,41[ 0 RI C. Ct Ii• in to 1 al A a � � oc 11•1 W p 0009So Q t v C GOOEs0 40 c g UMW (13 w v u1 0. R cm V y- o Z Li • = o.... °ZS ° u WI o El 'RS 113 01 Q A313389 N33N9Jib0 2 II .4 . >, na a V v V `. C o z z .'` RS a NOIWNIHSVM '11380N c rn ._,1 cl,: IL J o o� L °- m i :.-,-• ,__ • ,,, 0 ,„ i ,3), 0 :4---2 14 F- 4-", _ 'a v o . : to t!• II W R - M V l Ask IA V a u o U I s iri M 4,1 i 1,_ z •t... c "0 • O 11 V Lf) ,•` •• .• , cp N t LV Vi W W 01 W > _ •_ 0 a L I a :� z R W �y Ei . �' 000950 t 400DSO 1... CC 40 tn 13 ° �, a S y 1 kb 0 W la 03 0 U U • W. g2. 0 , a •O 0 '� >. A313380 V E Ea i ,.... , N C LZ. v N33N971b0 f▪a a -0 a) W a > R3 NOIDMHSVM 113210N Z (0 O a a v) a _ .N O •"C.CI z3 z �.. N f6 ell cu*+ V 0 V te " ° vs a Q a >� z c cc N "O . = a,= a'• i M o �i Z c ".11 Z a nnO ' -O w o v,, o o o= w m fl-_ _ z �- J _; O N N 6 Ea` 2 < 0 ►_- Aji' C O O cr) co eV t: V _ O • ^ $ > m_ _ Q Q O LL ,•L x 5 �. N .. R V ] 1 W y I ' U:-., cc , Et. . 0 . C Li vl a s N • }r �o to d I 11 rn O1 INC i E `° a •c • _ m , ri iIn M• O O •• • O Cn M t . [1.:, • V rn i • F. . a II. N R� }"LIJ T a, i- �, CC O. 0 c a000so . . 0009s0 �n 1— N 0 V 0. - Q. p , j.. ° CIA ii E a • O p ' � Qj I A3133N9 / 8 CI In C S , N33N9�b0 a V = •_ >, to O D i' 1 4--1 V N019NIHSbM _cm MD a.+ fQ CL) ll3NON m 4.• O a i I V • Lu c to O J -o i o Z a, Q. ko QJ _ ] :::,A 2 (1) fa I : — 1 O = III O 11y a �+ i 8 c o o as to .cD ,F �L CU Q ra u. a. Q X l . i, a a rn Y_a • ij ' . P 4) A x 0 ". O ... „, c. a RA 's L inn C rn fi I to C. • • of s al 51. CU C CA N W E I N H I- 0009SO aooOSO Q 111 Q) • o 0 o • c -a u i o c A31331:0 _ O N3310)1V0 U A ."c C 1 0 N E" (1) 0 - V .O 0 N019NIHSb'M Z fp .Q 113210N c rn '+ c A df; �O '� ._ o LL z c N M , ', Wj c o o N m °- u)en t F- F- w O `` n` ¢ o H • ,1 _ �, VI 0 .` •_ C in V ] ,, a r GI Q Q O Li _ at c • • • • f/1 .,_.a / 1 • "CI x 0 .7 „,,,,,,,,,; • _ u ,,, ,, a E 's in I .. d cri up rn C tO CL 1 V W ♦ M •••••••••00sire<7 RI 4-4 03 W F t711,1 En W o a000SO aoo�SO CC 0 LU Lii a-' V p ii pal IV N i3! .i • >. Ti v C N A3,33N . in MI W p L p N330)1110 a. u 0 }' in. w a c W am, N N r' v a o 0 4� �L/ a■, NOIONIHSVM .113NON CP a+ TA C i J1U +i7' V W Q. 0 c i N G of W Hill • I 0 :,,,,. Ln r Q Q O L.L. = . • • • • fY1 x 1 • 3 • F.: , ...--- . ____ ., ., s 2 � v i M ° C O = a � • vi • M j fa .00.00000uprogro000/V CU i AI tv 0 O o Z CA C LV '_ inn'J 1 '_ `1 000950 000950 Q 1 vi O la) . il ,,,,c CI tri 4-0 . s 3 al ill V O `�' Z i H. O a '' 0 a 41) VI kJ e z IA ro ii •i 1, = C I-- 1�3133a9 al ,. Ci O N33a9NVO 1 O u N O C t11 Tii -0 O Y. %.. _ ul FE° IM O0 E � 12. 73 �I• o W a.+ > c a V O - O _ N019NIHSVM 113110N Z „ H 4 0 a_ ,�o cruu O 'VI � V '�+ -� ,,a } o v cc tJ - M 0 >cu = Q ate, rn >c fl �sts co 4 '> C al `n w rho CC i .,= ...s'- ' w o ` z C O co m nY o C r4a M Cn ' N L rn M - j ', a6 E � ¢ O= O O ` O■• ii l 1,,,:,,, :v 1.— c a. ca tn O 01 I O O I cv co C 'O V 22 N 0 u O > ■ < < Z O I-1- rn jiT, L7 ' I, x A ;i U . ° > V J *+ LI fl. tn VI ,:r. CA W N = m • a O C M i D GI C 'a 0 �; J ... o i = (3.) ... C C. d •C O N i N 'n m °`n+ 41 1. 0 l� �° • a • *+ C �c en N a • W lac *• * A eo Cil 01 .. . • IA s• L 0' ■ � V •• • —•U a) 1 W " a 2 I 4.0= " 13 2 CC O O ," W O s ~ _ C = a000so a000so CU 4. f- �_ a�i W • a� V .a 3 N z0 I o d I m Q V C u. 13 °' � Cu A3133)19 i .D N O ;` N332i9Nd0 illi N A {-+ Q C H O o O �1 a d N ti c it W V O .5 O 2 4=i obi N019NIHSVM 113dON W cd 71 �+ Q Q '; a°e ,c0 a, �i= ° a a •> cv u— 3 ; v a, —'— 2 E V cC /O� .AO� Q z R o 3= 4 cc W• '^ a W E t: L' LL LL Z� C N 01 ` „ M i ° Q. Q IT .4 1 •• C = '• ] C 03 Cn u L. a-+ cn to Q }, O a•+ -. Q 1=- O LL TS. s up 3 • c; C M m Z e I i • , f f Recommendations: 411 1. Existing frontage road conditions and poor geometries discourage use of the frontage road system, placing more traffic on TH 36. Regardless of decisions about the ultimate concept 3 for TH 36, short-term improvements should be implemented prior to 2010. Short-term improvements should anticipate future roadway improvements to minimize repeated disruption of businesses and land uses in the area. 1 2. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the corridor should be improved regardless of which -1!� roadway concept is selected. If a safe crossing cannot be provided via roadway connections, `' then a pedestrian/bicycle bridge should be considered. 3. Proposed roadway improvements should include aesthetic treatments appropriate to the character of the surrounding area including lighting, landscaping, bridge and retaining wall treatments and pavement selections. 4. A grade-separated facility with two interchanges and maximum speed of 45 mph should be considered as the ultimate solution for the corridor to provide adequate capacity and acceptable levels of operations. However, design of this facility should seek to minimize its impact on the surrounding communities through sensitive choices of horizontal alignment, vertical placement and aesthetically pleasing treatments. The design should seek to minimize business takings and to explore opportunities where mutually-agreed upon sale of property or relocations of businesses can occur. • 5. Following completion of preliminary design, Mn/DOT and the cities of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater should explore options for preserving right-of-way and minimizing future land use impacts through official mapping or some other mutually-agreed upon mechanism by December 31,2003. 6. The study partners should continue to work with Mn/DOT through the preliminary design process to address the above concerns, and, through a cooperative process, develop a roadway improvement package acceptable to all parties by December 31,2003. 7. Transportation alternatives (e.g. Light Rail Transit, or bus hub) should be examined as part -, of future Mn/DOT planning for the area. TiNext Steps 1 These recommendations will be presented to the Oak Park Heights Planning Commission and City Council, the Stillwater Planning Commission and City Council, and the Washington County Board for adoption. The resulting recommendations provide the conceptual framework for development of preliminary engineering layouts for the study corridor by Mn/DOT and consideration of staging for the proposed future improvements in the development of the St. Croix River Crossing or future projects in the area. y 36 Partnership Study: Final Report - IS - December 2002 1 7 iii Final Environmental Impact Statement kg and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the 0_.- New St. Croix River Crossing I WISCONSIN *MINNESOTA i 49 6436 _ \. 1 ,i w a�,a 4,.,=. '�kC��.a 4 � a � Fs� ws.rr =,-.4 r a ,r a y y s m w � „+,- ) ''' * taut' " !r''' 4j .v w ' '''.: 4& c w ' 4i- r -,. b * d `F'' 't4 e "vra 5 tia 1+” • N g II ,,, ;,,..,, ,,,,,L...,,,„,I 'S j ._t ` T a+ liv L r., { dye ?.. 4 1 I l . 9 . • D° 20 Minnesota Department of Transportation .11 • Wisconsin Department of Transportation II v Federal Highway Administration .../F Try- 1 ■ Lliii O NJ • III ac Q Z H 2iiiii o CI O Z CO t7 7 N LelZZ e 04 x 0 KJ v IN m m Q W ~ 04 _ W i ' a imi moll W 9 ` 000950 ‘010 000950 gle O a • 0 ac 40 !I o ,313389 °' N33898tl0 mut C=3 °i `o ° ° ° a, cu aO L d W ° - 0• c=1 4E 24 mil c_D d A �.l1 • Z• b. I C Of \o° M °, "' N019NINSVM= 1130N CIC _ N O - ~ C G E x CD ° 11'f 'C 6l INN .0 �i H O „° CO C 'O °° C Cle CD a, WWI 133 c, Q d a m - d .a, . v _ 03 1,1 o c ,2) z' > > CD W ° n 1111111NIG lag W Ch y 'G D 4 .0 �i�i m L • ilia CI- • • • • '"-- ;1' :;'):i'l' ''''''''''''' 0; F „ :.: I ,......... • H! , ..._i 1 ,.1, , c , ji ic . '?".-Ii.arat c• -..,i I.:: . • 1 1 --7-1 li i ' II 7.. .• : •i • 4. ,..!i : r r _ I i• ['74:il 2 .:7,.:::. '..f''''s 1 I 1:V tj'C'f..1'.I ..d I. ,'I ,■0:V: \',,,,,,•:-/ titiV- 4,-,. ..,•:-. --- ,..,, . .t) r ,;.:.„92,•,,,,,,-„..e., fit . ,,,,, ;:', ,,. ‘..\ , _,„, i ..,! ! 1 I ...;'::-.11..A...'''...:::.. : I -,_... -‘ i IN!.E; ,. . • t i 1 21., .,,,,i ten, .. ' .• -.7, .,...-4.1....4:,,,f.--• iN-."'<t'•r 1+ 1 . ' '''' "Ilillj , / ••,11. .1‘,07•4 • • 1;1 il :.„.„..:......„....„,..,: g - : k :.. i,?flValr.11.vtle:11:: ■-a !---_- __ • 0 .3 0-1 •..• lig . 11.?„.„'_-_.-...........•;,:II„ f,. ' .•k.-•:. 9° i 'II 0 Z i'1ri1 •1 . .. .,, '; 6. ,!. 'I' CD t. 1 . •^-1-1)-14,•1::: . III V:g. H., '■-414..:t_4.: ..,./!!, ..1 . . ,.4.,, .,• I . UV ,. i„ ) 0.,, • •„,,,,,„,,,t.J..,,f,„ , , . .,_••:••i, 1, ,„-, -,--..-7,--------.:-____ ...-e•- *P'77f.`,,. __ 71 • 0 ! ..,4 ,,' •.'.. t10(;;;Iit-3.7r,: ''',".--. • C*) -•-•._!!f- , !, '. I. .t. , Ifi':. 0 Z i H .,, PI Is., ':p3j. .......r.g.;*'''.' i :.t i Cr) . 11,, 1, ,., . • 1'' IJ i,1 . 7'.. :1;,.:-.;.:Ta:;.:.;;;;.•;;;< M 73 H ::: ,• ---1 ., 1 VI 1, [ 1: ' 1 ' si,\ i.;.• 1 ,i: • *.i..„:!„ 1_._, i 1.10 I' ' •I ' h.\ ■ .„ ,• L.: P. cs.- '// i,•, 1, + 1:: ' 1: 3",//I 11 L ---'-. ;,,/- 1 I T .,„r,•-..,.. 0,4, , ...„-• • , ./.1:•.,?:„.......,,\ ,.. '.'/. ,,,t• , r.,,,, 1.,,,..... .,.N• , 1 ( : .. i• ;.. .i ;,:,,,,,,,,.........,.....: 'i(r.:ii. • --, :...1,,if.1 , P..—,■.1.:31IV'" d:I. ■ rf-11.•.!, -kz-r-: •^1 ''''' liii t4b; (11 • ' I . ..: ,.. .,, ,., • ...1; ' :.- ■•• i 1 1,1 1,1“1.' 1. (Y.:), ,. ) t.IA 1-- .1,efi ..-••1 !„ 1 _ , ''' .--e•*________. _2 -• -ii,:;--41.-,, - .-=-----=----..— 0 70r. fry,,wr 1110 .' )14'•!Pu,l'I i '•i.' ,-('- •,;:i...,"0 1, 7 ,1: . , li•-• Vic - •-,- , r 1 t7i'' , • •i ... . I , •,- ..T.:7 ! ' . _......-/,- ,•••-:,r.-,„,....,...-_,-..,-, .,?,-.--...:::::,,,,,.--:,_-,,t,T,Ve$'4,'E''7,-:.§T'.,'. 1,-- C,;„ . ---,--- 1 '-- -- .---'''''' (...,..1.:- t'-.7 12 1.'-,t. 4'1 - AiNizr.'A''-.,"-- !.-M-.---.0"--s; ;- ■ e----- -:Ctittli t. `-' ' -- : '-'-':-- - ":; - ---''-----• -:.i -.- ; f.-....:•---'. '----.:---.-.:-:::=.,-.--‘-`;'-‘-'-?;----,--; . • K ft ,c [ a '-. %.. ,,,. ., ° r s- ue y `+^ sr �''3 r } i q�- 4 1 ms`s__*xf.„...,:sii,_42.23.,,...,,...,v,...„.:,.„!:.1_,„,,,,,,,,_...,.. :x_=4.,Atif,..;,,,.;.; _t_,,,,,,„:„. •. . _. r---,--_,,;:-.,.., m .. �i -`A >-#'` -ef - `-' �" 1.b ,_z -Y k ,r . " : ,Y,-'�.i,. ' y'� 4 A" +xiz .t.-...,�c�vt..,,,._ 1 9 ry Y `�.RYd "'Ya.r[f�.r iwa` -I.; ` ty fj".,y.4`+ t ' r ......,.....„.............„,....„ ,,, „...,,,..,...7..,...,,...,.....„.,..,:„ . _ _CEoKLvr. .e.- r --------- - . . .. ,.. _ _ . . . . .. . . ., . .. _ _ , CrossIflg: - y c ...„........,.......„_....„ ..:.,...,.i.,::,...,..,,„,,.:,,: ,,,,.:,_.. _ ..... .... .. . . .. . _.. , ,_ .,. ,._. .:;.,7_.:.__,....„.....:._,..„. .,:,....,:,...„ . .y...... • i } .-:.� c . • __ _ ` � + fir} ,'Trunk_Hi Aiwa 36,Washin ton County,_Minnesota • � " , 3 State Truro t way 64 St.Croix County,Wisconsin = y re 1� --,,,4y �•1 ti .-4 i r } •. ! ..' .� v, 410:4714';{ ` +- `.r, i ` - `R August'2Q04 .. i R J ' fi° s. :r` "' "#. Z r y , i t ?4 - fir* . r i` F a�tGrWt R "' Minnesota Department of Transportation Wisconsin Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration . , . , . • ,— — (OI-31 ONV 9- T 'S-ZI 'e-at sminsIA 33S) 3NI,NO1VN 'b CD ca Yl./.....'1-- • t I II t..■ 1 ,4"., .3 Lli i Ir'qk; ,t0'U 0 . • e t ,. 1H4.' 1 ,411 1,-. rc e H,f fold 11 1,6'.v' " .i 16'I i--i ' - I' (vault-ow NW (mow .,.. -.. = u.i (I/.au.00)limy (100090 -• 1.,77,I— ,,r,l,„*+•,,;11.L'7,.„.,-,,;,, , , o-,,..,0., ,:,,,, 4= r- -d f triin'31, 1 o I •" c.11 i .2' "'''''' ', 1 ' ! ,r 1 ._-j , ,F71 C 1■ ,, i ' 84 4a 4L , r' ' P h lg zg c. c, ,T .._.,._ _ ..„ 0 III III .• 1• 'i I , '''''''6-h$.' • ,r..,.1)..,' , IT7 r,.-ifi.‘5,.!,',.1,,:(■ i ' 1,,.., .r 11 I I N r:J Li'■■ ", 4 :g , •._••• 1 : .„ • s•,,,,‘tdlitiiiival i r.- ,, -(.J., 1., i.:‘,„:.. .1.1,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,: -,-_- ., 1lifts ■,11,ff.) ';--.'• 1 ' - t.,,,,ti‘ ',' . • .. . 11 (99 Rve:).ZAV la'1351110 u- i----• 1 1(1 !1.1.. •I -"'' '211.--ikl - 'I.:: 1 atm tazuosvo 11■"--' 51111 .--:4111:it. .., „• ,,if ii, , „—Ii , .., ,, • i .____2•,,,..; , f.. .1 ' , 11 eT, ,—--,,,,, ,1.1 i i , • ;„,1,- 11 If, 1,—, . > .■• / ; I . IEJ ; a• 1 7 .1 •,--= 1 r1,- I al '21 I 4. I , ,L.,. i 11 I 1 1 1' I 10 co b i I 1j ,0 <, -c- HAY NOIDNIHSVAt 1 u :1! _,....----' . . • , I■(.1 I I I . , 0 - ----L---7---. ,----.■ • '■■ ,I I. ■■,(III ' ..- :I.ff•Av TraxoN tj a , ••+_ _-:11 r• , •"' -• 0 1 ../,'I .,.1/ ,-•,-, rl a. E III 1 i) 1111 c • „ .....I H„ 1 I--. I I > 4'. "' -■''. '; ', ' ' i' w ■1 ■t 4 t t lu t.,.... . ii 0 i I ... ' ■ ,a t 1-4- 49 CD ! 11 - . . , ,, • • i , k ,■, , ., ■ ' ■., ,I- .• n I, I,•'■ .)) ),,...', , N•' ..1 AO r3) ) ). • - • I \ ';, 1•11 •,.. .,„ / \ • • h WC , ..Si:4 •.C■ . , . C . A I \ C'•',',',.s. • -.'- , ,I. CU 4. ,.. t 1;-,„,,, it t..,,., 9 , , N f/ o -•„--E la A III . ;.Z..,"L' I'. li_,, ! r i■- i 'IN:: 1.00.0-17,1,9891,1.11.PON...thr.imegryrpgatt,,, ■-/ _ _ — — -.... _Alb..-....-...---_--ar...—■ (9T-£ONY£I-£ SOT-C '6-£S3Sf1OId 33S) th H 3N11HO.YN d 4 f`�fl !� L' r 1 Q. • l e Ili], 'I r" ! ` '�'I{ 'I I _-1 o i f - j wrcni vo)'11'RY GOODS° W (YLU 03)'N'HAV GOooSO r *,g,11,11:,,, G ' y I I,i 1 0 I i1 I�. IH. _7 c. I r o 0 \ � If Li 1 11 ',I'll !gig i I I + :4,.:02 tl 'II `alod (3 mii of _ ,',61'1111.c y i 11 II 1, ,„ 1 11 111 '111d.1g1' 1 .11 .�7.g4 AitIr 1 • j!I II I go 1; d l - . cl1,(I It�y 1 I�11" a 1 'u ti. V._ . - r;l I u{ i II li ) ' (99 FIY93)'HAY XHZHHIIJ -'°� - I ,., —� „ — 'HAV toxvo w k i � 11, l • . ; g , . I t j 1 1jl ■, ' ' f lig ill .1'' .7 11, jAiii6. 1 il ! illii Il '' .. , , ■ c...,,Ilf, 11,:jJ„ , OP, ON1.11000 0 1- II'• 1 1 II j1C ,. �1rrI HAY xoaonm;sv� nl I ' > 1�- �'%Ay TI'dHOH 7 • �1 I m 1 'I 1 3 1.i if s m I I I i I I if j 14 I . y !� 1 • w C r • Q y. I ui mc 2 co G O 6l i y { w O SO c �� M .7 I :ft 1f .--;‘,1% �' 1 % • / ',I -P Fh/ C ' ]4 ''WW ! C_ U �, i/I I : \ ;. '''' �"' ii g S ,bq-W'9B91W.N'MM.Mo+0.sMsaKopYaNY TABLE 4-4 III EXISTING (2002) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS - P.M. PEAK HOUR(7) Map Traffic Delay per Level of No. Control Intersection Vehicle Service (I) (2)(3) (4) (3)(6) (seconds) 2 Signal CR 5 and Curve Crest Blvd 27 C 3 Signal TH 36 North Ramps and CR 5/Stillwater Blvd 14 B 4 Signal TH 36 South Ramps and TH 5/Stillwater Blvd 19 B o 5 Signal TH 5 and 58th Street 20 B s°i. 4 6 Signal TH 36 and Norell Avenue/Washington Avenue 31 C Ti 7 Unsig TH 36 N Frontage Road and Norell Ave./Washington Avenue 30 D/F WB 8 U° 8 Unsig TH 36 S Frontage Road and Norell Ave./Washington Avenue 15 C/F EB 9 Signal TH 36 and Oakgreen Avenue/Greeley Street 34 C M 10 Unsig TH 36 N Frontage Road and Oakgreen Ave/Greeley Street 80 F/F WB 11 Unsig TH 36 S Frontage Road and Oakgreen Avenue/Greeley Street 98 F/F EB 12 Signal TH 36 and Osgood Avenue/County Road 24 40 D 13 Unsig TH 36 N Frontage Road and Osgood Avenue/County Road 24 >300 F/F WB 14 Unsig TH 36 S Frontage Road and Osgood Avenue/County Road 24 12 B/F WB 0 to 15 Unsig TH 36 WB On Ramp and Beach Road 5 A/A NB e 16 Unsig TH 36 EB Off Ramp and Beach Road 3 A/B EB 17 Unsig TH 95 and 56th Street 6 A/B EB 6 18 Signal Main Street and Nelson Street 82 F 3 19 Unsig Main Street and Olive Street 36 E/F EB 4 20 Signal Main Street and Chestnut Street 53 D(o o 21 Signal Main Street and Myrtle Street 122 F 22 Unsig 3rd Street and Olive Street >300 F/F WB A 23 Unsig 3rd Street and Chestnut Street 141 F/F SB 24 Unsig 3rd Street and Myrtle Street >300 F/F EB o 25 Unsig STH 64 and CTH E 28 D/F WB u 26 Unsig STH 64 and STH 35 6 A/C WB 3 27 Unsig STH 35 and CTH E 4 A/A EB (1) See Figure 4-13 for Location Map (2) Signal=Traffic Signal Controlled Intersection (3) Unsig=Unsignalized Intersection with Stop Sign Control (4) Intersection delay estimates(in seconds). (s) Level of Service for Signalized intersection is shown as overall intersection LOS. (6) Level of Service for Unsignalized intersections is shown as overall intersection=LOS X/LOS X NB for the worst approach. (7) Includes one bridge deck lift during the analysis period. 0 (8)LOS D reflects the presence of a metering effect at the Main/Nelson Street and Main/Myrtle Street intersections. The adjacent intersections limit the traffic volume reaching the Main/Chestnut Street intersection; yielding better LOS results than anticipated. Refer to the traffic operations technical memorandum for additional information. AUGUST 2004 St.Croix River Crossing Project 4-25 Supplemental Draft EIS TABLE 4-10 (41) 2030 NO-BUILD INTERSECTION OPERATIONS - P.M. PEAK HOUR Map Traffic Delay per Level of Vehicle No. Control Intersection (h Service (I) (2)(3) (5)(6) (seconds) 2 Signal CR 5 and Curve Crest Blvd 98 F 3 Signal TH 36 North Ramps and CR 5/Stillwater Blvd 22 C 4 Signal TH 36 South Ramps and TH 5/Stillwater Blvd 21 C 5 Signal TH 5 and 58th Street >300 F es w d 6 Signal TH 36 and Norell Avenue/Washington Avenue 133 F 7 Unsig TH 36 N Frontage Road and Norell Ave./Washington Avenue >300 F/F WB 6 8 Unsig TH 36 S Frontage Road and Norell Ave./Washington Avenue >300 F/F EB (,°.) 9 Signal TH 36 and Oakgreen Avenue/Greeley Street 36 D A 10 Unsig TH 36 N Frontage Road and Oakgreen Ave/Greeley Street >300 F/F WB 11 Unsig TH 36 S Frontage Road and Oakgreen Avenue/Greeley Street >300 F/F EB 12 Signal TH 36 and Osgood Avenue/County Road 24 47 D 13 Unsig TH 36 N Frontage Road and Osgood Avenue/County Road 24 >300 F/F WB 14 Unsig TH 36 S Frontage Road and Osgood Avenue/County Road 24 196 F/F EB C. v., 15 Unsig TH 36 WB On Ramp and Beach Road 20 B/B NB • 16 Unsig TH 36 EB Off Ramp and Beach Road 7 A/C EB 17 Unsig TH 95 and 56th Street >300 F/F EB ia 18 Signal Main Street and Nelson Street >300 F 3 19 Unsig Main Street and Olive Street >300 F/F LB tz • 20 Signal Main Street and Chestnut Street >300 F 21 Signal Main Street and Myrtle Street >300 F I 22 Signal 3rd Street and Olive Street >300 F A23 Unsig 3rd Street and Chestnut Street >300 F/F WB 24 Signal 3rd Street and Myrtle Street >300 F •p 25 Unsig STH 64 and CTH E >300 F/F WB 8 26 Unsig STH 64 and STH 35 165 F/F WB 3 27 Unsig STH 35 and CTH E >300 F/F WB 0) See Figure 4-13 in Section 4.1.4.2 for Location Map (2) Signal=Traffic Signal Controlled Intersection (3) Unsig=Unsignalized Intersection with Stop Sign Control (4) Intersection delay estimates(in seconds). (5) Level of Service for Signalized intersection is shown as overall intersection LOS. (6) Level of Service for Unsignalized intersections is shown as overall intersection=LOS X/LOS X NB for the worst approach. 7 AUGUST 2004 St.Croix River Crossing Project 4-45 Supplemental Draft EIS • 110 St. Croix River Crossing Project: Updated Schedule August 2,2004 Scoping Phase: Sept 2003 Preparation of Scoping Document/Draft Amended Scoping Decision Document Nov 10,2003 Publication in EQB Monitor(submission of Notice on Nov 3) Dec 2&3,2003 Public Scoping Meetings—Wisconsin and Minnesota Dec 10,2003 30-day comment period ends Dec 2003-Mar 2004 Preparation of Final Amended Scoping Decision Document(FASDD) March 29,2004 Publication of FASDD(submit to EQB on March 22) Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement SDEIS Phase: Jan—June 2004 Evaluation of alternatives/Preliminary Design/Preparation of SDEIS June 15&21,2004 Public Informational Meetings—Wisconsin and Minnesota June—Aug 2004 Review by Mn/DOT/WisDOT/FHWA;Revisions Aug 16,2004 Publication(submit to EQB on Aug 9) Sept 21 &22,2004 SDEIS Public Hearings—Minnesota and Wisconsin Oct 6,2004 45-day comment period ends(required by Section 4(f)) Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement(SFEIS)Phase: • Nov 2004-Jan 2005 Response to SDEIS comments/Preparation of SFEIS Jan 31,2005 Publication of SFEIS March 2,2005 30-day comment period ends March 2005 Preparation of Record of Decision April 2005 Publication of Record of Decision June 2005 Municipal Consent 2005-2006 Final Design 2005-2007 Obtain Federal/State Regulatory Permits 2005-2007 Right-of-Way Acquisition 2007-2011 Construction 2011 Project Complete and Open to Traffic St.Croix Crossing Stakeholder Problem-Solving Process—Stakeholder Meeting Schedule • #01 -June 10,2003 • #08-January 27,2004 • #02-June 30,2003 • #09—February 24,2004 • #03-July 22,2003 • #10—May 4,2004 • #04-September,23,2003 • #11 —June 22,2004 • #05-October 28,2003 • #12—July 27,2004 • #06-November 25,2003 • #13 -October 26,2004 • #07-January 6,2004 • #14-October 27,2004 • Project Website: h t tp./!www d ot. tate.mn.us/metro/p rojects/stcroix/ndex.html e City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 September 13,2004 Mr.Dennis Postler Bonestroo,Rosene,Anderlik&Associates 2335 West Hwy.36 St.Paul,MN 55113 ***VIA EMAIL ONLY*** RE: Hwy 36 Impact Study Dennis, As we have discussed,please continue to develop the utility cost estimates that would be necessary to move /alter our systems in the event of a Hwy 36 project as contemplated by Concept F,or other layout (cut/cover)is to move forward.In general,one could look back a previous studies and make reasonable estimates in today's dollars. Again the estimate must be on ly a generalized statement with th r easonab 1 fun dam ental assumptions. • The Council would like these estimates for review at the September 28th,2004 Council Meeting.Please let me know when your costs exceed$5,000 for the preparation of this estimate. Thanks, Eric Johnson Cc:Weekly Notes C Toh s. ✓ N • • Bonestroo Rosette.Ander lik and Associates Inc is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer ALA Bonestroo and Employee Owned Principals:Otto G Bonestroo,P.E •Marvin L Survaia PE •Glenn R Cook EE •Robert G Schunichl PE • Rasene KUM Jerry A Bourdon PE •Mark A Hanson PE • Anderlik& Senior Consultants:Robert W Roe P.E •Joseph C Andcrlik PE •Richard E Turner P.E•Susan M Eberbn C PA Associates Associate Principals:Keith A Gordon PE-Robot R Piet retie PE •Richard W Foster PE •David 0 Loskota,PE • Michael T Rautmann PE •Ted K Field.PE •Kenneth P Anderson PE •Mark R Rolls P.E •David A Bonestroo MB A • Engineers&Architects Sidney P Williamson PE L 5 •Agnes M Ring MO A •Allan Rick Schmidt.P.E •Thomas W Peterson.PE • g lames R Malirnd P.E •Miles B Jensen PE• I Pump Gravel III PE • Daniel J Edgerton.PE •Ismael Martinez PE • Thomas A Sylko PE •Sheldon J Johnson•Dale A Grove PE • Thomas A Roushar PE •Robert J°every PE Offices:St Paul St Cloud Rochester and Willmar MN•Milwaukee: WI•Chicago IL Website:wwwbonestroo com September 3,2004 Mr. Eric Johnson,City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd.,P.O.Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082-2007 Re: Highway 36 Utility Relocation Estimates Bonestroo File No, 55-04-134 Dear Eric: As requested,we can provide preliminary engineering estimates for utility relocations associated with MnDOT's proposed Highway 36 and Frontage Road improvements, and the Stn Croix River Bridge Crossing improvements. Estimates will be provided for the Preferred Alternate "F" alignment as well as the "Cut and Cover Concept"proposed by the Business Owners Group. As 4111 discussed, these estimates will be preliminary in nature based on the two-dimensional concept plans available at this time, but should provide a basis for the overall impact to existing utilities of the highway and frontage road improvements. We propose to prepare these estimates for an hourly not-to-exceed fee of$6,800. If you have any questions or require additional information,please contact me at(651)604-4815. Thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance to the City of Oak Park Heights. Sincerely, BONESTROO,ROSENE,ANDERLIK&ASSOCIATES INC ifeedo 04* Dennis M. Postler,P.E. Cc: Judy Hoist,Finance Director Tom Ozzello,Public Works Director DMP,KSE,DDH—Bonestroo • KA551.5504134\Word\Enginecring Etc Lctter_9-3-04 doe 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113• 651-636-4600• Fax: 651-636-1311 Bonestroo,Rosene,Anderlik and Associates,Inc.is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer anBonestroo and Employee Owned Rosene Principals:Otto G.Bonestroo,P.E.• Marvin L.Sorvala,PE.• Glenn R.Cook,P.E.• Robert G.Schunicht,P.E. . Jerry A.Bourdon,P.E.• Mark A.Hanson,P.E. vi Anderlik& Senior Consultants:Robert W.Rosene,P.E.•Joseph C.Anderlik,P.E.• Richard E.Turner,P.E.• Susan M.Eberlin,C.P.A. Associates Associate Principals:Keith A.Gordon,P.E.• Robert R.Pfefferle,P.E.• Richard W.Foster,PE.•David O.Loskota,P.E.• Michael T.Rautmann,P.E.• Ted K.Field,P.E.• Kenneth P.Anderson,P.E.• Mark R.Rolfs,P.E.• David A.Bonestroo,M.B.A.• • Engineers&Architects Sidney P Williamson,PE.,L.S.•Agnes M.Ring,M.B.A.•Allan Rick Schmidt,P.E.• Thomas W Peterson,R.E.• g James R.Maland,PE.• Miles B.Jensen,PE.• L.Phillip Gravel III,PE.• Daniel J.Edgerton,PE.• Ismael Martinez,PE.• Thomas A.Syfko,P.E.• Sheldon J.Johnson• Dale A.Grove,PE.• Thomas A.Roushar,P.E.• Robert J.Devery,PE. Offices:St.Paul,St.Cloud,Rochester and Willmar,MN• Milwaukee,WI• Chicago,IL Website:www.bonestroo.com September 3, 2004 Mr. Eric Johnson, City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd., P. O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082-2007 Re: Highway 36 Utility Relocation Estimates Bonestroo File No. 55-04-134 Dear Eric: As requested, we can provide preliminary engineering estimates for utility relocations associated with MnDOT's proposed Highway 36 and Frontage Road improvements, and the St. Croix River Bridge Crossing improvements. Estimates will be provided for the Preferred Alternate "F" 0 alignment as well as the "Cut and Cover Concept" proposed by the Business Owners Group. As discussed, these estimates will be preliminary in nature based on the two-dimensional concept plans available at this time, but should provide a basis for the overall impact to existing utilities of the highway and frontage road improvements. We propose to prepare these estimates for an hourly not-to-exceed fee of$6,800. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at(651) 604-4815. Thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance to the City of Oak Park Heights. Sincerely, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK&ASSOCIATES INC lila;0,,I7A- Dennis M. Postler, P.E. Cc: Judy Holst, Finance Director Tom Ozzello, Public Works Director DMP, KSE, DDH—Bonestroo • K:\55\5504134\Word\Engineering Fee Letter 9-3-04.doc 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 t • 4 „4:e ' City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 September 3,2004 Mr.David Blumberg HLB Tautges-Redpath Ltd. 4810 White Bear Parkway White Bear Lake,MN 55110 RE: Supplemental data to previous information. Dear Mr.Blumberg, Enclosed you will find the data sets and corresponding maps for the impacted properties for the Hwy 36 Concept F layout.As you can see I labeled each parcel with an identifier and a GEOCODE.There is also a corresponding list of such parcels placed in order via the identifier.You can quite easily see the depiction of the proposed roadways;the construction limits are in smaller-dashed line and is the tolerance to be utilized in this analysis. Further,each parcels street address is listed where one exists,the property owner as well as the Market III Value of the Land,Buildings and Machinery.Additionally there are values for the Limited Market Value- also for land and buildings.These data can be manipulated to create estimated losses based on total or partial takes.Enclosed is the spreadsheet in floppy disk do calculations could be run. It is my understanding that the"value"information is as of 1/1/04,so would need to be adjusted accordingly,as there has been significant construction since that time. Overall you may or may not wish to utilize this data,but that decision is left to you.I would be happy to meet with you to go over this data in further detail so contact me at anytime-my cell/home phone number is 651-338-2223. Time is of the utmost importance and the City is relying heavily on this analysis to be complete in a timely fashion so please endeavor to provide us with your first draft • the report no later than September 246 , 2004. R-:ards, c o on City . • •ini• .tor Cc: Weekly Notes Dave Mol,HLB Tautges-Redpath,Ltd. I 1 • Street - MV MV LMV Case.Parcel# GEOCODE Number Street Owner Acres MV Land Building Machinery Building LMV Land Code 1 3303020430033 SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH CEMETERY 3.80 380000 0 0 0 0 912 2 3303020430001 SWAGER BROS INC 2.35 100 0 0 0 0 962 3 3303020430032 14851 82ND RICHARD L SMITH II 0.00 58000 100700 0 83800 48300 201 4 3303020430031 14759 82ND CLEON 0&ELAINE F GARLEY 0.75 92800 812000 0 0 0 205 5 3303020430030 6208 OSGOOD THOMAS R&KELLY J HOSEK 0.00 100000 72900 0 60700 83300 201 6 3303020430040 8180 OSGOOD PATRICIA K ROUTSON 0.00 115000 113900 0 103400 104400 204 7 3303020430039 6148 OSGOOD DANIEL D&FRANCHESKA WORTMAN 0.00 155000 158100 0 158100 153000 201 8 3303020430038 JACOB HOLDINGS/80TH STREET LLC 0.00 365300 0 0 0 0 243 9 3303020430042 14702 60TH JACOB HOLDINGS/80TH STREET LLC 3.85 1588700 803800 0 0 0 233 10 3303020430041 6130 OSGOOD RANDY WESTBURY 0.00 75000 82700 0 72700 65900 201 11 3303020430056 6118 OSGOOD GPI PROPERTIES 1997 LLC 000 185500 215600 0 0 0 233 12 3303020430057 ERICKSON POST ACQUISITION INC 0.00 206400 52500 0 0 0 233 13 3303020430044 14612 60TH JOSEPH M&MARY A KOHLER 1.27 162500 26300 0 0 0 243 14 3303020430045 14608 60TH JOSEPH M&MARY A KOHLER 0.00 252500 384900 0 0 0 233 15 3303020430037 14450 80TH FOURCROWN INC 0.00 289100 247700 0 0 0 233 18 3303020430035 14520 60TH FRED'S TIRE CO INC 0.00 320900 306600 0 0 0 233 _ 17 3303020430034 CURTIS WARREN&DWIGHT SKOGEN 0.00 205300 425800 0 0_ 0 233 18 3303020430049 14575 61ST ST CURTIS WARREN&DWIGHT SKOGEN 0.00 179200 83500 0 0 0 243 19 3303020430050 14525 61ST JEREMY H&SHARON K BROWN 0.41 99200 82600 0 0 0 233 20 3303020430051 ROOF TECH INC 0.00 98800 97400 0 0 0 233 21 3303020430052 14524 61ST ST BEDROCK INVESTMENTS 0.00 128400 288800 0 0 0 233 22 3303020430053 14580 61ST RICHARD E&PAULA J ZEUU& 0.00 82500 121300 0 6 0 0 233 23 3303020430054 6120 OREN 8120 OREN,LLC. 0.00 100900 173300 0 0 0 233 24 3303020430055 6150 OREN D D BROMEN&F J RHEINBERGER 0.00 172200 172400 0 0 0 233 25 3303020430048 6080 OREN 6080 OREN LLC 0.00 103300 157500, 0 0 0 233 28 3303020440008 6201 OSGOOD 1ST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 0.00 413000 4532000 0 0 0 915 27 3303020440007 6120 OXBORO OAK PARK ASSOCIATES 3.95 514700 3299000 D 0 0 205 28 3303020440025 6060 OXBORO OAK RIDGE PL/OAK PARK HGTS INC 3.30 330600 3852800 0 0 0 205 29 3303020440020 6061 OSGOOD HOLMEN OFFICE ASSOC 0.00 431400 185000 0 0 0 233 30 3303020440018 HOLMEN OFFICE ASSOC 0.00 178800 0 0 0 0 243 31 3303020440008 8143 OSGOOD FREDERICK P JR KAUNOFF 0.00 141900 184800 0 28300 30000 233 32 3303020440009 8157 OSGOOD FREDERICK P&PATRICI KAUNOFF 0.00 33800 178500 0 0 0 205 33 3303020440014 14884 60TH WASHINGTON CO 0.00 60000 122500 0 0 0 955 34 3303020440010 14904 80TH WASHINGTON CO 0.00 80000 149600 0 0 0 955 35 3303020440015 14922 60TH WASHINGTON CO 0.00 60000 105100 0 0 0 955 36 3303020440011 14942 60TH WASHINGTON CO 0.00 60000 147800_ 0 0 0 955 37 3303020440013 14954 60TH WASHINGTON CO 0.00 60000 102900 0 0 0 955 38 3303020440016 14990 60TH DONAL B&NORA S SWENBERG 0.00 60000 136700 0 134100 58800 201 _ 39 0402920110001 14773 60TH HOUDAY STATION STORES INC 0.63 303000 386300 0 0 0, 233 40 0402920110004 ROBERT BRACKEY 0.00 140900 122400 0 0 0 233 ip 41 0402920110003 14843 BOTH GREENBRIER PARTNERS 0.00 537200 994400 0 0 0 205 42 0402920110051 RIVER VALLEY RENTALS LLP 2.40 158000 0 0 0 0 208 43 0402920110052 EAST OAKS HOA 1.00 100 0 0H 0 0 962 44 0402920110049 MCCULLOUGH&SONS INC 0.00 482600 0 0 0 0 233 45 0402920110050 5965 OSGOOD VALVOUNE INSTANT OIL CHANGE 0.00 170700 141800 0 - 0 0 233 48 0402920110124 STILLWATER ASMBL OF GOD CHRCH 0.80 64000 0 0 0 0 918 47 0402920110080 STILLWATER ASMBL OF GOD CHRCH 0.00 80000 0 0 0 0 918 48 0402920120017 SC MALL LLC 0.00 1521200 0 0 0 0 243 49 0402920120012 5995 OREN OREN PROPERTIES LLC 0.86 153900 248800 0 0 0 233 50 0402920120023 SC MALL LLC 0.00 98900 104100 0 0 0 243 51 0402920120024 SC MALL LLC 0.00 216800 297000 0 0 0 243 52 0402920120025 SC MALL LLC 2.50 330400 162800 0 0 0 243 53 0402920120004 14661 60TH VIOLET E KERN-TRUST 0.00 280100 r 241500 0 0 0 233 54 0402920120005 14821 80TH LODGE ELECTRIC 0.00 383500 118400 0 0 0 233 55 0402920120011 14587 60711 MING SUN CHU 1.48 404000 103400 0 0 0 233 56 0402920120010 14583 60TH PATRICIA A RADUENZ 0.00 246200 204800 0 0 0 233 57 0402920120009 14545 80TH FRANCHISE REALTY INTERSTATE 2.50 384000 336000 0 0 0 233 58 0402920120002 14529 80TH BFI REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC 0.00 375900 138300 0 0 0 233 59 0402920210015 OGREN PROPERTIES GROUP 0.00 104200 398000- 0 0 0 233 60 0402920210017 OGREN PROPERTIES GROUP 0.29 102800 0 0 0 0 243 61 0402920210013 JACOB HOLDINGS/80TH STREET LLC 0.86 262200 0 0 0 0 243 62 0402920210012 JACOB HOLDINGS/60TH STREET LLC 0.00 404000 131300 0 0 0 233 63 0402920210039 14399 60TH OAK PARK LLC 0.00 138200 417500 0 0 0 233 64 0402920210007 14375 80TH ISAACSON CHILDREN'S PROPERTY 0.00 373800 490200_ 0 0 0 233 65 0402920210003 14337 60TH ALLAN A JR&GERALDIN CONNEL 4.57 190000 175700 0, 0 201 66 0402920210005 14303 60TH JOHN JUNKO 0.00 101900 105000_ 0, 0 0 233 67 0402920210011 14261 60TH DEANNA M&ROBERT P ZACZKOWSKI 0.00 119300 145200 0 108300 87800 201 68 0402920220011 EDWARD T&EVONNE L JOHNSTON 0.00 125600 0 0_ 0 0 243 89 0402920220018 14231 60TH EDWARD T&EVONNE L JOHNSTON 0.00 141700 68300 0 0 0 233 70 0402920220008 14191 60TH SUZANNE M VICHOREK 0.00 115000 145400 0 144000 113800 201 71 ,0402920220004 14151 80TH TIMOTHY J BOCKMAN 0.00 135000 123100 0 0 0 201 72 0402920220005 14087 60TH MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 0.00 740000 0 0 0 0 952 73 0402920220001 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS 0.97 48500 0 0 0 0 958 74 0402920220009 JOSEPH D&LAURA H ACKERMAN 2.00_ 38000_ 0 0 0 31200 201 75 0402920220010 5789 OAKGREEN JOSEPH D&LAURA H ACKERMAN 2.00 80000 96400 0_ 0 0 201 _ 76 0402920230065 5725 OAKGREEN SIMON O&JORDYCE M JOHNSON 1.70 84000 139200 0_ 0 0 201 77 0402920230084 5715 OAKGREEN CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS 0.00 100 0 0 0 0 965 78 0402920230063 5825 OAKGREEN ALLAN H&MARGARET L PALMER 6.00 135000 110400 0 97000 118600 201 79 0502920140004 5676 OAKGREEN J K&K GROUP LLP 1.00 66000 138900 0_ 131300 62400 204 80 0502920140038 VALLEY SENIOR SERV ALLIANCE 12.00 240000 0 0 0 215400 208 81 0502920140003 5710 OAKGREEN HAROLD R&LY SPLI1TSTOESSER 0.46 64000 110400 0 0 0 201 82 0502920110027 5754 OAKGREEN VALLEY SENIOR SERV ALLIANCE 0.00 50000 64000_ 0 45500 35800 204 83 0502920110028 5770 OAKGREEN PATRICK L ESTES 0.00 64000 127400_ 0 128100 83300 201 84 0502920110025 5800 OAKGREEN VALLEY SENIOR SERV ALLIANCE 0.00 84000 118000_ 0 116300 83000' 204 _ 85 0502920110030 VALLEY SENIOR SERV ALLIANCE 0.33 25000 0 0 0 8800 206 • 86 0502920110028 5830 OAKGREEN CHARLES&USA R PINGEL 0.72 64000 105300 0 102200 62100 201 87 0502920110029 ANCHO BAY PRO INC 0.63 1000 0_ 0 0 0 206 88 0502920110040 13813 60TH ANCHO BAY PRO INC 14.49 374000 132200 0 0 0 206 • 89 05029201100180023 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 90 0502920110052 HOM4ME INC 0,00 100 0 0 0 0 962 91 0502920110001 13999 60TH DANIAL A&LOIS J HALL _ 0.00 310800 49600 0 0 0 233 92 05029201100340039 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 93 05029201100080015 0.00 0 0 0 - 0 0 94 0502920110008 13961 60TH DOUGLAS S&SARA E WOLFF 0.00 227600 299300 0 0 0 233 1 95 0502920110005 13951 60TH WILLIAM E&SANDRA K GRAMENZ 0.00 157300 100600 0 0 0 233 96 0502920110004 MABEL L LINGUIST 0.00 70400 101300 0 0 0 233 97 0502920110042 GERALD M&BONITA A SIGSTAD 2.24 585500 0 0 0 0 233 98 0502920110032 NSP/XCEL ENERGY 1.55 101300 75300 552000 0 0 230 99 0502920110031 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS 0.00 100 0 0 0 0 965 100 DELETED 101 0502920120041 13733 80TH ELMER&RUTH HAASE 8.13 1786100 0 0 0 988100 101 102 0502920110033 13797 80TH JCJ LAND CORPORATION 10.04 1029900 19500 0 0 0 233 103 0502920120040 ELMER&RUTH HAASE 6.27 1388800 0 0 0 834300 101 104 0502920120042 13625 60TH APPLE AMERICAN LMTD PTR MN _ 1.33 483500_ 845800 0 0 0 233 105 0502920120033 PETER R HOUSER 0.00 406100 0 0 0 0 233 106 0502920120018 13601 60TH GERALD A JR SCHOENECKER 0.00 208300 153500 0 0 0_ 233 107 0502920120017 13575 80TH GARDNER J THOMAS 0.00 168700 178600 0 0 0 233 108 0502920120035 GARDNER J THOMAS 0.00 133000 0 0 0 0 243 109 0502920120034 5815 NORELL WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS 15.96 3476100 3087000 0 0 0 233 110 0502020210020 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS 2.08 208000 0 0 0 0 958 111 0502920210016 STILLWATER AERIE NO 94 FOE 0.00 199700 0 0 0 0 243 112 0502920210022 WAL-MART STORES INC 1861 0.00 58500 0 0 0 0 243 113 0502920210025 STILLWATER AERIE NO 94 FOE 0.00 130700 0 0 0 0 243 114 0502920210013 13523 60TH STILLWATER AERIE NO 94 FOE 0.00 309000 195700 0 0 0 233 115 0502920210011 13481 80TH BART J MONTANARI 0.00 155300 495000 0 0 0 233 116 0502920210012 BART J MONTANARI 0.00 78300 0 0 0 0 243 117 0502920210031 13435 60Th LINDA M PETERSEN 0.00 348800 370900 0 0 0 233 118 0502920210038 THE SHOPPES OF OAK PARK HTS 1.15 273800 0 0 0 0 243 119 0502920210037 THE SHOPPES OF OAK PARK HIS 1.20 297900 0 0 0 0 243 120 0502920210035 THE SHOPPES OF OAK PARK HIS 1.80 418800 0 0 0 0 243 121 0502920210034 THE SHOPPES OF OAK PARK HTS 9.88 2311000 0 0 0 0 243 122 0502920210021 WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS 1.74 381900 0 0 0 0 243 123 0502920210033 THE SHOPPES OF OAK PARK HTS 9.83 2304000 787400 0 0 0 233 124 0502920210038 THE SHOPPES OF OAK PARK HIS 1.05 253500 0 0 0 0 243 104a 0502920120043 STATE OF MN-DOT 105a 0502920120038 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS 108a 0502920120037 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS 107a 0502920120036 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS 0.00 100 0 0 0 0 965 108a 0502920120032 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS 0.00 100 0 0 0 0 965 106b 0502920120030 LPILGREEN&D.HAASE 0.00 600 0 965 113e 0502920210028 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS 0.80 100 0 0 0 0 965 . 114a 0502920210023 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS 0.00 100 0 0 0 0 985 248 3303020430036 BEDROCK INVESTMENTS 0.00 2200 0 0 0 2000 206 29a 3303020440024 STATE OF MN-DOT 0.00 100 0 0 0 0 987 2a 33030204300020005 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 2b 33030204300080009 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 1 2c 33030204300100013 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 2d 33030204300140017 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 _ 2e 33030204300180021 0.00_ 0 0 0 0 0 2f 33030204300220025 0.00 0 0 0 ' 0 0 20 33030204300260029 _ 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 32a 3303020440021 KALINOFF CORP 0.00 16200 0 0 0 0 233 38a 3403020330104 6083 PANAMA WASHINGTON CO 0.00 60000 123100 0 0 0 42a 0402920110053 EAST OAKS HOA 1.20 100 0 0 0 0 962 45a 0402920110014 5805 OSGOOD CHURCH OF GOD 0.97 98000 560000 0 0 0 915 47a 0402920120018 5900 OSGOOD CWP WEST CORP 0.47 144500 176800 0 0 0 233 48a 0402920120019 SC MALL LLC 2.10 283000 3204200 0 0 0 233 1 48b 0402920120018 SC MALI.LLC 2.10 288700 0 0 0 0 243 48c 0402920120020 SC MALL LW 0.00 31600 0 0 0 0 243 48d 0402920120021 SC MALL LLC 0.00 24900 0 0 0 0 243 79a 0502920140002 VALLEY SENIOR SERV ALLIANCE 5.38 75000 5500 0 0 0 206 83a 0502920110024 5782 OAKGREEN ANCHO BAY PRO INC 0.00 75000 112800 0 78300 52000 204 90a 0502920110048 DOWN D&HEATHER L MYRLE 0.03 30000 0 0 0 0 206 90b 0502920110049 DOWN D&HEATHER L MYRLIE 0.03 30000 0 0 0 0 206 90c 0502920110050 5932 OAKGREEN HOM4ME INC 0.03 30000 54800 0 0 0 204 90d 0502920110051 5930 OAKGREEN HOM4ME INC 0.03 30000. 54800 0 0 0 204 90e 0502920110043 ORUN 0&JUDITH A MYRLIE 0.03 30000 0 0 0 0 206 90f 0502920110044 ORLIN D&JUDITH A MYRLIE 0.03 30000 0 0 0 0 206 909 0502920110045 ORUN D&JUDITH A MYRLIE 0.03 30000 0 0 0 0 206 90h 0502920110048 ORUN D&JUDITH A MYRLIE 0.03 30000 0 0 0 0 206 901 0502920110047 _ORLIN D&JUDITH A MYRLIE 0.03 30000 0 0 0 0 206 1 \\t\ elk 0 0 1--\ /7-_rn.../. X I 1 cn 1 ;NJ _____..__-. CY) )171/tf °o I le =Imo ea: iiii),"„At ' . E3-__L____ 1:11,..er -.4 L r -- O , ; O 1 O -P l , � I f - \°) ■---4b c ce, / l'...,1".'___ . r' ! _� O N N IV 1 .4 C) N " CO O N O.O • N N4, os 1° ° NN O -P O Np ■11400,111 , . -I N N N -_I CO C) j0 0° I N o Ul ON CO O ji +►�■ , . :., . quill N Cr O ( or o o 1 • 4N. r\) /IPA...1 : Q _a I Ahlq,.. N C3i. li I i f t, ._ OC) 4, , , li ,... —... . . ..„, __41! r co 1 a.) tr-Ph 'i N i O Cal (n . N 1 \ o -_�- ° ft• _1 1.. ktSi. ---- 1. CD N o \ -. i. CD\ 'a-} ••P" mria, 01 CO .p 0) N — N O _ ,� N N O po O • ■ o . • v '. o �. . . U1. _ N O .. co �. N - — — / N N O CO p N W O W 2 1 O O N .O 0: -1. 07 I if 1 : : \\ yyr o...w AI 1 lli� �D o 4iLikJH$ I se: ; 4-) r o A_....„ 1 .if trawill'A I a °a a c.) • 4II \1 N P \ \... 111 1) I CO . ) tx \ o wR ii . 1 ! :4.; ;._; ., , _., ■ --1.I.Iiiii_C° yri Cal � ° T co • ..._ jir , . N.. �\ w .: .� - — N -? -i \o N gii ff.' ,..., . ... 0,_ •. w w o� o ,\\ I g�■ p A° !' 2 a oa - \�` • I o p O--g OO C,,`I o1 CO -_ . co r( = h. N C3) W pp 0� _L w w o c n 0., 4 i V I 'cl 1 i 1.... ... _ MI - ...... ... W W sn " a l \ r W CO co co lk.)\ pi q ,�. ro O w s N o W O A ry ; o N o o N co Ill AO II. •• 0 Q -. N Cx N NO W IV • j O . . CO I. .p W p O .. . lid •. ;. - o O CO O O O �. o w O O O a •. p o Qp co co CO i r o O O O__ CO as o. O W ,p w TTT 1 ''. r:\ . W 'rlk.' • ,. w cp w CO W Co N O O .; co fr? .N. — .-q-- (..., • No O n, N:••O, � W O.: II p �, a. k .A O N N 0 0 \\ o N O 0....,,N; — — N cn N N::^::o -N._� a. /��•N O N 0.'.N W N NJ ..0:? 0 CO 0 ^ 0 0 o O 0 O: r' i , f rn N : P 4- (.0 ' O L1T11T O` 0.:. op O n cn ,Q-N 4.\ k3 0 cY) : O 01-LO Ifill O / i -o u °° M ! r lir N MI III 011 • 11 I I 'r N ......r it /. if T .. . ..... .. I/ 1 O r=Ii al. I :; • • , 0, : _ . N 0 - _ Ali -_ 4, 0 --- _7!' N::: . Ad ., i o - s . .r ,N � . , n No -,,,,... , \_ .., c.,_‘ .___,..., ,.. I#JIjI . • ..J, - \ , ,D w w 4 • ' O G w w OA.pN !o 'am_. ---- `"117*1.451 il /11` , .. 11 en. , i Atit Si o I1 :L ■ i 1 N i\) • b• 0 ;■,C:3 1 ; r —.X lit 60 „O ii 0— o. — .: Ul pp 1... ....3.. N _ 111°c,N (N m oUrf , , :.0 . .A.". . _ N .o °o +,, -P 1% O. N::.p -P 1 c) -c�a,,. j .mo j-!I ' 1' si ppO' O . �. i� P. N.4 i'l 4:c° ' --tc) i ' at ca CD ca p Ca -1'. CD co' OD n' 'j -P N ( if I f ..t el N O 3 Eter, , 0 . CY o au co O/ ,/ N W N 1� , . O 11 41, O r 1 ,......1 :Ir 4110 : 0 Cr CA\ .1 • l.:// CD ' i:// / iiii • .....1 ,6/9"./i0TrAliall'41411V-.. ry N ./ . .. / "! •l•- . .• O . .. , . .. fi. . , • ( i• 1.., 'llim"LIIIH'-j-LILIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.-.............,. -.71.""- , ." • • ., „ CU CO. ,, ......•, . . .... . .. . . (Ilk) • - . ••. • : . '....‘" 1 i ;II)''?: :.';'" ' .::'''''''''' :' . ° ° O 1:;...:::` • N :: (n o 11 •• N. 0. • O. • .O •ON ,- .O s p •.N - 0.,.•N•CO .8 .� c) • co ,....... -,J ''''!.-4.... ••• N • 0 0 O N O O � _ � .... .. O O to)cfl C) • N•0) •a, N .:-L O •" N Ili ; '` 111 O. r OO 0 W • -- � . �+ co O. 'a.,.N . , I f 1� � �: �•., •o•p. '� N) t11 111 O f; Ii ; 1 W.' 111 ' M tt...,. :......:... = sii _ 1 lit........::i......:,.... ......::,...--...;.:: . ..:........ ..._...........co.•.:......... .. .,..: 111 A Fraio 1.* (1:1,..•:. , ail 0 r i 1114. .et.rr.rsirrrrr�r�.t.tlfrIIIIIIIIMlt ,li`.44 O fa CD.,..,. 11+ klik • •. •: . •'. • ', 1ii.te(11:3) . .2i ,.„- N,....... '''`...4 .• •„:... 0 ill - • N. \ • 11 l 1 `C. :QUI -- -- . � ~ `.`':� • O ref / • .-----,chs ;_41:4 O ' t c:::,.•'...• n)... • o ' .N..'0 N :: ,, (O N:.:: O • JN — 0 N }. N O N".N 0 0 N Ca Oo OCn O 0.: O hr �y 0 t p• :N NO f . O O - - - • N O N 1011 — , o ° olei . CO r I o O I I O N. 1 O' .._., • _ _ ______ ....,. __, c.) 1 0 1 1, - - 0.) iii ... .. � .. - 1 1 , O it c..71 1 . 0 1 , -- '1 , 1 -7------1— N) , , , , co. 1 N 1 i j 1 - ; 0, ‘ WO 1 -- ).-- E____—-- ND r' , , _ _____ 1 c\ I .7 - _ , ___, )i \ p ■ (.31 , - - , _ , 1 , li 1 N 1 , _ , , —co .., ,___ , • [ __ 1 ,(7- -,,__ J ,,,, II 1 N / C 0 ___ 0 �� O N - - � N p co O O O o O at Cn O O � N " O N O N O I _ _ N O N O O N O O NCO O^v p N Np l'\\-- W O 0 0� O W O _.. N 4 O 1 O 0;0 N O J W CO, CO W . .... I _ !®. +r!--- - • I 1 -.._ _-— jam} ._.:J • —�_ -.. - -.4 -.4 4� QO ■.1 C ,31 1 0 .P . . O N O. O O II . W N - - ,I r 41 _ ii /� 0 01 rr ,. .` �/ -s- , , , .. ,. \-- --r, , _ , , 1 , ____ , _ _,,, \ , ,, ,_____. _r. • _ . ------ ____ _ ____ ,• \--.,- 4, ; , , ,-,:: ,,! , : :;, ,,,, , . -... . - , _ , .. . . : :--; , , , i 1 0 : . .. _ , , c O I 0 o N N` II CD N O p . lIT- --o-----o—N: CTI Yom . p'.O O : N; :�= y N GO O N .. c) Iv —A. g „. .....„ : ... .... ...: W -� O O.) N Cr C:) N 4114 l o o w N ,ak co 0 1; `'`qtr N p !; ii '. O W iii sir O O 01 N N ` / e" ,Ir. O O — .: CCD O NI p • / •► ,I. N Cn CO - , i li .MO 0 C.) N) C5\ /,/, f ' k 1 C9 N - ie l■ CD 0 0 . .mllt. \ •,N p N " III •.N N � 0 CA) • / 'I 0 . r ' .. , ..t .I �"_" — 115 41i ._::.;.„.... _.k . , . _.1. . o , 461141 -.. r.) , • .. , _________________. _ .•.... , .... •••,, .. . .,.. ‘..„, .. ditli , _ �4z 111®,II c s ,ki 0 .ig C) (D "'a 01 / O '1 tk 1 N '� • N ° !�� O 171 O o C3� N O cs O 1 ° °o o g N O Q Q .] O O O N .....X. s _. N CO(31-P' 8I R)1.O w N . CD CC W ° �o / ; . ..o N ....... . 2 r ....., CO -,--- —.---,-- NQ %. % � ': 11- / Q N ti>W ti) J hi 0 : 8 O O / X11 • N ' 11.11P� ��;N r co N ..../1 ;. trt f v ,11,E City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 a(651)439-4439*Fax 439-0574 August 31,2004 Mr.Rick Arnebeck MNDOT- Metro Division Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE: 1995 EIS Statement. Dear Mr.Arnebeck, In addition to the request by the City Council regarding the insertion of the Cut and Cover Concept into the current version of the Draft/Final EIS,the Council also requests that language from the 1995 Final EIS document also be clearly reinserted into the current Draft/Final version. It is this language that was agreed upon in 1992 by the cities of Oak Park Heights and the Stillwater that advocated for AT-GRADE intersections.An excerpt from the 1995 EIS is attached hereto for your reference that contemplates that understanding. • This understanding may already be in place and/or may already be in the current Draft EIS,but I was not able to locate such language.Again the City requests that this language be clearly and directly stated. Please let me know if you have questi,, i s. Bards,/ ric Johnson City A.u . .tor Cc: City Council Members Ms.Beth Bartz,SRF Mr.Todd Clarkowski,MNDOT 411 • rill ‘1111 b This summary provides a brief overview of the Preferred Alternative and of issues discussed in the Final EIS. More detailed information can be found in the remainder of the Final EIS, and in the Draft EIS previously released in March 1990. 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The Final EIS addresses the proposed new river crossing over the St. Croix River, between Oak Park Heights, Minnesota and the Town of St. Joseph, Wisconsin. In addition, the document discusses the reconstruction of portions of Trunk Highway (TH) 36 in Washington County, Minnesota, and State Trunk Highway (STH) 64 in western St. Croix County, Wisconsin as approaches to the proposed river crossing. Figure 1-1 shows the location of the project within the Minnesotasconsin area. The Final EIS identifies the environmental impacts of a new bridge and approach corridor along the preferred alignment (see Figure 1-2) advanced for design development within the South Corridor. In addition, the reasons for not advancing other Build and No Build alternatives are also discussed. The study corridor runs from the County Road 15/TH 36 intersection in Minnesota to a point on STH 35/64 approximately 4.0 kilometers (2.5 miles) east of the state line e (the Si Croix River) in Wisconsin. The Preferred Alternative involves upgrading the existing expressway along TH 36 from Washington/Norreli Avenues to Osgood • Avenue in Minnesota and constructing a new four-lane divided freeway from Osgood Avenue across the river to intersect with existing STH 64 in Wisconsin approximately 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) east of the St. Croix River along the new highway alignment. The length of the proposed alignment is approximately 9.7 kilometers (6 miles). Within the Minnesota portion of the project, continuous parallel frontage roads will be extended and upgraded from Washington/Norell Avenues to Osgood Avenue along with a frontage road connection from Osgood Avenue to TH 95 on the north side of TH 36. A new interchange will be constructed at TH 36/TH 95-and the three existing signalized intersections will be upgraded to accommodate additional traffic growth. The new four-lane bridge will start at the TH 36/TH 95 interchange and proceed northeast across the river, utilizing a natural ravine on the Wisconsin bluff. The bridge will have provisions for pedestrians and bicyclists. A new four-lane divided highway will be constructed in Wisconsin which will bypass Houlton, interchange with a new alignment of County Road E and STH 35, and proceed on to join into the existing alignment of STH 35/64 . The function of TH 36 and STH 64 within their respective state transportation systems is to serve long distance trips between regions. In Minnesota, TH 36 is classified as a major arterial. In Wisconsin, STH 64 is classified as a principal • arterial, and STH 35 is designated as a minor arterial. 11111 . 1-2 Iyt +, H , 0 . - f 7,it-, 4.. , ..„ City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 August 25th,2004 Mr. Rick Amebeck MNDOT- Metro Division Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE: Municipal Consent Dear Mr. Amebeck, As you know the City and MnDOT have exchanged correspondence on the matter of which process of municipal consent is to be applied in the current HWY 36/St Croix River Crossing Project. Mark Vierling's letter of August 3rd,2004 was the latest attempt to clarify which process of Municipal Consent will be utilized. And,to date MnDOT has IDnot responded. It is the position of the City of Oak Park Heights that the legislation adopted by the legislature,modifying the municipal consent process specifically exempted existing projects from the effect of the new legislation. The legislative record of the amendment will show that St. Croix River Project was specifically discussed as one of those projects. It is further the City's position that this is not two projects but one,(also position advocated by MnDOT through this most recent process). Trunk Highway 36 improvements are inseparable from the Bridge proposals and they will be treated by the City as indivisible. Your letter of July 8th,2004 states that, "...it is Mn/DOT's position that the alternatives under consideration at this time are different from the 1995 preferred alternative and therefore would be a different project under the municipal consent process. Therefore, municipal consent will be pursued under the current legislation." If it remains the position of the Department to not recognize the former legislative process as being controlling relative to municipal consent because the current project is somehow new and/or different, we ask the Department to specifically outline and detail for us each and every one of the factual instances that it claims exist,to distinguish this project from that which was previously provided to the City of Oak Park Heights and rejected by the 1997/1998 federal court decision. 11111 , ___ _______ _ ____ __________....., Accordingly,the City awaits a response from MnDOT addressing the issues and concerns raised by Mr. Vierling. In order to avoid this issue causing delays,the City and MnDOT • should come to a satisfactory understanding within the next thirty(30)days or the City will be required to seek an -rnativ- resolution. mc- e Eric Johns,� City A■ IU I strator Cc: City Council Members Mark Vierling,City Attorney Todd Clarkowski,MnDOT Beth Bartz, SRF • • City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 August 25,2004 Mr.Rick Amebeck MNDOT- Metro Division Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE:Cut&Cover Concept-Insertion into Draft/Final EIS Dear Mr.Arnebeck, At the 8/24/04 City Council meeting,the Council did discuss the items/process as outlined in your August 11th correspondence relative to the insertion of the"Cut and Cover"concept into the EIS documentation. While the City has concerns over the timing of this process,the Council has suggested meeting on one of the following dates to progress in a matter that you have outlined. Wednesday,September 15,2004 Wednesday,September 22,2004 Wednesday,September 29,2004 • The City does anticipate that the meeting will include MnDOT,the Stillwater City Council,Washington County representatives and other parties including those from the Partnership Study,BOG and the Chamber of Commerce. This meeting should be held 6 p.m. t an appropriate location suitable to maintain an appropriate dialogue among participants- d recommend the Washington County Government Center.Please note that the September 29t°date should be viewed as a difficult date for this City and potentially other groups as that evening is the Washington County Local Government Event.It is our understanding that MnDOT staff be responsible to coordinate this meeting with the necessary parties as soon as possible. Lastly,while this process may derive potential solutions to the EIS matter,it should not be interpreted,as an element of Municipal Consent as such process is independent from this meeting.And,regardless of the outcomes of this meeting(s)the City does require the"Cut and Cover"Concept to be inserted into the EIS documentation. Please contact me if you have any questio- . ds, on City Admini r.tor Cc: City Council Members Mr.Larry Hanson,City of Stillwater Mr.Jim Schug,Washington County Ms.Beth Bartz,SRF Mr.Todd Clarkowski,MNDOT Ms.Diane Rollie,Stillwater Chamber of Commerce Ms.Gail Pundsack Mr.Curt Newcomb,Business Owners Group 0 p City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 August 18,2004 Mr.Rick Arnebeck MNDOT 15000 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE:Boat Ramp Dear Rick, As you know the City has clearly stated that it is not significantly interested in having such Boat Ramp Facility located within our borders.However,the DNR remains constant in their opinion that this Facility be included in the HWY 36/Brideg Project.So in some effort to keep the process in a positive tone City Staff suggests that the following items are the minimum general conditions that the City would seek for the installation of the Boat Ramp within Oak Park Heights.All final approvals would need to be granted by the City Council after being placed through an appropriate process and placed into an appropriate agreement. • The property is zoned Industrial(I)and would need to be rezoned to an alternative use that allows such facilities;or the Industrial code would need to be revised to allow such use via a Conditional Use Permit(CUP).CUP would need to be issued by the City Council. • • All City Wetland and tree protection ordinances must also be reviewed and complied with.All such permits and required staff analysis shall be paid for by DNR as per City Development Process. • The City shall approve layout and design. • DNR would bear any and all costs for construction. • All structures shall require a CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS Building Permit. • The City would set all hours of operation.A gate shall be placed at the entrance/exit and may be operated by the City. • DNR is responsible for all regular maintenance and shall be kept in a l'`class condition. • DNR would annually pay$40,000(this amount is a rough estimate)into repair/replacement fund paid to the City-in perpetuity-during the life of the facility.This would ensure that the facility is maintained,replaced and/or removed. • DNR would annually pay$40,000(this amount is a rough estimate)police patrol/carrying cost stipend paid to the City-in perpetuity during the life of the facility. • After ten years,should the City Council determine that the facility has become a public nuisance and is detrimental to the health,safety and welfare of the City of Oak Park Heights,the facility shall be closed.Upon the closing of the facility all structures,concrete,piers,docks,roadways,etc shall be removed by the DNR at the direction of the City and the property shall be restored to a condition as required by the City. • DNR shall fund 1/2 of the cost of the Autumn Hills Park Shelter(in 2004 dollars=50%of$450,000). • Again these concepts are Staff level comments and are only for points of discussion to potentially move this process forward.The City Council has not given or implied any further interest in this Boat Ramp/ Facility beyond the written documentation recently . vided to MnDOT. estRe! Eric Jo ++ City A +++,++ • . •r Cc: City Council Members Todd Clarkowski,MNDOT Beth Bartz,SRF S • ��\\\11t1I114/1 i Wisconsin Department of Transportation m11111111������\\` TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 6 718 West Clairemont Avenue Eau Claire,WI 54701-5108 August 16, 2004 Telephone (715)836-2891 Toll Free (800)991-5285 FAX (715)836-2807 TDD (715)836-6578 E-Mail eauclaire.dtd @dot.state.wi.us MAYOR DAVID BEAUDET CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS r"-- ^r r-7 14168 OAK PARK BLVD NORTH P O BOX 2007 OAK PARK HEIGHTS MN 55082 AUG 18 • Subject: Project I. D. 1550-00-02 St. Croix River Bridge and Approaches STH 64 St. Croix County, Wisconsin 774YC S12.i07 S Dear Mayor Beaudet: • This letter is to officially submit to the City Oak Park Heights the "Notice of Public Hearings" for the subject project as required by Wisconsin State Law. As this project includes an interstate crossing of the St. Croix River, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation is required by State Statute 84.12 to give notice of the Public Hearings to the transportation department of the adjoining state and to the governing body of the county, and of the city, village or town of the adjoining state in which any portion_of the_bridge project will be located. Please note in the enclosed Notice of Public Hearings the locations for the two public hearings and where locations that the Supplemental Draft Environmental Statement (SDEIS) and accompanying documents are available for viewing and how testimony can be submitted on the project. If you have any questions about the project, please contact me at (715) 836-2857 or 1-800-991- 5285, or Todd Clarkowski of the Minnesota Department of Transportation at(651) 582-1169. Sincerely, Terry C Pederson, P. E. District Planning Projects Engineer Enclosure: Notice of Public Hearings CERTIFIED DT82 1 ' A • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE LOCATION, ENVIRONMENTAL AND STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY SYSTEM CHANGE ASPECTS AND NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT OF MINNESOTA TRUNK HIGHWAY 36 AND WISCONSIN STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 64 BETWEEN MINNESOTA TRUNK HIGHWAY 5 IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND 150TH AVENUE IN ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are advised that the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Transportation will hold public hearings as provided by law to consider the location, environmental, State Trunk Highway System change, Section 84.12 interstate bridge, and Section 84.295(10) future freeway establishment aspects of the proposed improvement of Minnesota Trunk Highway (TH) 36 and Wisconsin State Trunk Highway (STH) 64 (including those aspects that may require application to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for the placement of fill materials into waters of the United States). This project proposes to replace or relocate TH 36 and STH 64 with a freeway within one of four alternative corridors being considered between TH 5 on the west and 150th Avenue on the east located in Washington County, Minnesota and St. Croix County, Wisconsin. The corridors vary in length from 6.4 to 6.7 miles. Land required could include residential, commercial, agricultural, park, wetland and woodland. Relocation is necessary. The objective of the transportation project is to provide a safe, reliable, and • efficient transportation corridor by reducing congestion, improving roadway safety, and providing an adequate level of service for forecasted 2030 traffic volumes. An additional project objective is to improve the transportation system in a cost-efficient manner while avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating unavoidable impacts to the area's social, economic, cultural, and natural environment. Further information concerning the proposed improvement is available for inspection and copying at the Department's District Office, 718 West Clairemont Avenue, Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The public hearings will convene at 5:00 P.M. on Tuesday September 21 at Stillwater Junior High School, 532 W. Marsh Street in Stillwater, Minnesota and at 5:00 P.M. on Wednesday September 22 at Somerset High School, 645 Sunset Drive in Somerset, Wisconsin. As an informational service, staff will be present at the schools from 5:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. each evening of the hearings for informal discussion of the proposal. Exhibits of the proposal will be on display and a statement about the proposed improvement will be available for review. All interested persons are invited to attend a hearing and present relevant oral and/or written testimony concerning the general location aspects of the proposed improvement; the proposed change in the State Trunk Highway System in accordance with the provisions of Section 84.02 of the Wisconsin Statutes, the necessity of and the eligibility for construction. of the proposed interstate Y 9 Y p p bridge in accordance with the provisions of Section 84.12 of the Wisconsin Statutes, the establishment of approximate locations and widths of rights-of-way necessary for the iproposed future freeway in accordance with the provisions of Section 84.295(10) of the Wisconsin Statutes; the social, economic, and environmental impacts and effects of the proposed improvement (including those impacts and effects for which permit application to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers may be required pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act); and whether the improvement is or is not in the public interest and consistent with the goals and objectives of area planning. Land acquisition information and a schedule for construction will be available at the public hearings. Relocation assistance information will also be available. It is anticipated that the relocation of persons, businesses, or farms will occur as a result of the proposed improvement. Any person who feels that he or she may be thus affected by the proposed improvement may obtain relocation assistance information at the Department's Eau Claire District Real Estate Office, (715) 836-2891, or 1-800-991-5285. Provisions have been made for the submission of written statements or other exhibits in place of, or in addition to, the testimony presented at the public hearings. This additional testimony will be included in the hearing transcript if postmarked not later than October 6, 2004. Mail this additional testimony to: Written Mail: Written mail comments should be sent to the following address: • St. Croix River Crossing Project SDEIS Public Comments Mn/DOT Metro District Waters Edge Mail Stop 51 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville MN 55113 E-Mail: Direct E-mail — metstcroixriverxinq adot.state.mn.us. No forwards will be accepted. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are further notified of the availability of a supplemental draft statement that evaluates the proposal's environmental impacts and effects which has been filed according to the State and National Environmental Policy Acts. Copies of this Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (including technical memoranda) are available for inspection and copying at the following locations: • • Oak Park Heights City Hall Stillwater Public Library 4168 Oak Park Blvd North 223 Fourth Street North Oak Park Heights, MN Stillwater, MN Stillwater City Hall Washington Co. Gov. Center Library 216 North Fourth Street 14949 62nd Street North Stillwater, MN Stillwater, MN St. Joseph Town Hall Mn/DOT - Metro District 1337 County Road V 1500 County Road B2 St. Joseph, WI Roseville, MN Bayport Public Library Mn/DOT Library 528 North Fourth Street 395 John Ireland Boulevard Bayport, MN St. Paul, MN Carleton A. Friday Memorial Library Wis/DOT Planning Library 155 East First Street 4802 Sheboygan Avenue New Richmond, WI Madison, WI Hudson Area Joint Library Wis/DOT District 6 • 911 Fourth Street 718 W. Clairemont Ave Hudson, WI Eau Claire, WI Somerset Public Library Wis/DOT Bureau of Environment 208 Hud Street 4802 Sheboygan Avenue, Room 451 Somerset, WI Madison, WI Environmental Conservation Library 300 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN An electronic version of the document is available on the project website (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/prolects/stcroix/index.html). Comments regarding the environmental impacts and effects of the proposed improvement will be addressed in the Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement if postmarked not later than October 6, 2004. Mail to: Ali Written Mail: Written mail comments should be sent to the following address: v. St. Croix River Crossing Project . • • SDEIS Public Comments Mn/DOT Metro District Waters Edge Mail Stop 51 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville MN 55113 E-Mail: Direct E-mail — metstcroixriverxing(a�dot.state.mn.us. No forwards will be accepted. Persons with an interest in, or knowledge about, historical and archaeological resources in the project area are invited to present such information at the public hearings. The Departments of Transportation will review all comments and testimony presented and reserve the right to make a final determination upon the proposal as described in this notice. Note: The hearing sites are wheelchair accessible. Individuals with a disability who need reasonable accommodation to participate in the public hearings, please contact Beth Petrowske at 651-582-1465. Hearing or speech-impaired persons should contact the Minnesota relay Service at 1-800-627-3529. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICTS Project 1550-00-02 •.t • City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 August 14th,2004 TO: Mr.Dave Mol,Tauges Redpath,Ltd. FROM:Eric Johnson,City Administrator VIA FACSIMILE -651-426-5004 RE: St.Croix River Crossing Financial Impact At the August 10th,2004 City Council Meeting,the Council approved the implementation of the Scope of Work you had provided-per your Aug. 10th memo. The City must have this document completed by September 30th,2004 so it can be forwarded to MNDOT for its inclusion into the comments as received for the Draft EIS. There will undoubtedly be additional conversations and coordination on this matter so we will be in touch. • . anks Eric • • • HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. Certified Public Accountants and Consultants August 10, 2004 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Boulevard Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 RE: St. Croix River Crossing Financial Impact We have been requested to submit an estimate to provide an update of a 1992 report prepared by our office outlining the financial impact of the proposed St. Croix River Crossing in the City of Oak Park Heights. 411) Scope The analysis will address the financial impact of the following: 1. Previous land takings 2. Proposed land takings—full 3. Proposed land takings—partial 4. Connection charges 5. Utility relocation Methodology Previous land takings—the report will include a summary of the previous land takings related to the St. Croix River Crossing Project as identified in the 1992 report. Proposed land takings—full—an inventory of all parcels to be taken in full (based on"Concept F") will be compiled. The listing will include market value and tax capacity values (as determined by Washington County). Proposed land takings—partial —an inventory of all partial parcels to be taken will be compiled. This listing will be reviewed with the City administrator and City planner to determine the estimated post-taking value of the property. • White Bear Lake Office:4810 White Bear Parkway,White Bear Lake, Minnesota 55110, USA Telephone:651 426 7000 Fax: 651 426 5004 Hastings Office:1303 South Frontage Road, Suite 13, Hastings, MN 55033, USA Telephone: 651 480 4990 Fax: 651 426 5004 HLB Tautges Redpath,Ltd.is a member of iin.II International. A world-wide organization of accounting firms and business advisers. • • To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Oak Park Heights August 10, 2004 Page 2 Connection charges—the City is anticipating future connection charges on some of the parcels to be taken. The report will determine the amount of"lost" connection charges. Utility relocation—the report will incorporate the City engineer's review of utility relocation requirements and costs as a result of the St. Croix River Crossing Project. We estimate our fee for this analysis to be in the range of$8,000 to $12,000. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, HLB TAUTGES REDPATH, LTD. 411 , David J. Mol, CPA DJM:clg 410 496861.1 I tiF Minnesota Department of Transportation � a 1,,.oFTRP ,q° Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 August 11, 2004 Eric Johnson City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Dear Eric: This letter is provided in response to your request concerning the"Cut & Cover Concept" for T.H. 36 to be included in the EIS as an alternative concept for the T.H. 36 corridor. A similar request was also submitted by the City of Stillwater. 410 The draft EIS is presently being distributed for public review and will be available August 16. The most expedient way to bring the"Cut & Cover Concept"or any other alternative that warrants review into consideration during the EIS process would be as follows: 1. Convene a meeting of the sponsoring agencies of the T.H. 36 Partnership Study. (Mn/DOT, Washington County, Oak Park Heights and Stillwater) 2. Review the information and concerns that have developed over the past year as more information has become available. 3. Review the "Cut & Cover Concept" as proposed. 4. Develop a reasonable"course of action"that should be taken by the Partnership and incorporate that "course of action" into the EIS process for the St. Croix River Crossing. The Partnership Study is incorporated into the draft EIS by reference. In order to accomplish this in a timely manner, we should schedule a meeting of the Partnership Agencies by the end of September. • An equal opportunity employer Eric Johnson August 11, 2004 Page Two I would like to propose the following schedule in preparation for the Stakeholder Agency meeting. August 16 — Mn/DOT prepares a summary of Partnership Study and EIS information and "Cut &Cover Concept" and distribute to Partnership Agency Staff. August 23 —Agency staff to review information and comment to Mn/DOT. August 30 — Mn/DOT drafts a "proposed course of action"for review and discussion. September 6 —Agency staff to meet and discuss"course of action" recommendation — finalize proposal (BOG &Chamber). September 13 — Agency review of"proposed course of action" and discussion. • September 20 —Joint meeting of agencies for discussion, revision and adoption of"Proposed course of action". October— Mn/DOT incorporates the "course of action" developed by the Partnership into the EIS process by whatever means is appropriate. I will follow up with specific dates and locations for the meetings. I think it is important that the Chamber of Commerce (Diane Rollie) and the BOG (Jim Erickson) be kept in the loop through copies of the information distributed and an invitation to attend any meetings that are setup. Since ly, is rnebeck Metro District East Area Manager Cc: Don Theisen, Washington County Cheryl Martin, FHWA Todd Clarkowski Khani Sahebjam Alana Getty Fis R:4 . • • • . City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 August 11`",2004 Mr.Rick Arnebeck MNDOT- Metro Division Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE:Cut and Cover & At-Grade Intersections Dear Mr.Arnebeck, At the August 10th,2004 City Council Meeting,Ms.Gail Pundsack made a presentation to the City Council outlining a plan known as the"Cut and Cover"concept for the STH 36 Corridor.It is my understanding that she has provided to your offices the general outline of the plan and its potential impacts/costs. At the conclusion of the presentation,the City Council made a determination,via unanimous vote,to request that this"Cut and Cover"concept be inserted into the Draft/Final Environmental Impact Statement • (EIS)as an alternative concept.As such,the City hereby formally requests that such Cut and Cover Concept be inserted into Draft/Final EIS or other necessary documentation for further consideration by all involved parties as an alternative concept for possible implementation and funding. It is the City's understanding that the City if Stillwater took similar action earlier this month.Please advise us if further clarification is a• d 4 or ad' onal action is necessary. '. Bards /prcr" hnso City Adm' istrator Cc: City Council Memb- Ms.Gail Pundsack Mr.Todd Clarkowski,MNDOT Ms.Beth Bartz,SRF fz' €,y • A..$' City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 August 11,2004 Ms.Gail Pundsack Northland Accounting Services 5901 Omaha Avenue North Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 RE:Cut and Cover Dear Ms.Pundsack: Thank you for your presentation to the Oak Park Heights City Council at the August 10th Council Meeting. The Council voted unanimously to authorize the City to request that Cut and Cover be included in the draft Environmental Impact Statement as an alternative concept for the Highway 36 corridor.Please see the attached letter to the Minnesota Department of Transportation making such request. Pie. e- free to 'intact me if you have any questions about the Council's action. • •.cerely, Eric Johnson City Adm'I• • or Cc: ' ck Arnebeck,MNDOT Beth Bartz,SRF Todd Clarkowski,MNDOT • so ,. ,' ''.,v,i ' ''.4" ti ;1-4 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 August 11s`,2004 Mr.Rick Arnebeck MNDOT- Metro Division Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE:Cut and Cover & At-Grade Intersections Dear Mr.Arnebeck, At the August 106,2004 City Council Meeting,Ms,Gail Pundsack made a presentation to the City Council outlining a plan known as the"Cut and Cover"concept for the STH 36 Corridor.It is my understanding that she has provided to your offices the general outline of the plan and its potential impacts/costs. At the conclusion of the presentation,the City Council made a determination,via unanimous vote,to request that this"Cut and Cover"concept be inserted into the Draft/Final Environmental Impact Statement • (EIS)as an alternative concept.As such,the City hereby formally requests that such Cut and Cover Concept be inserted into Draft/FinaI EIS or other necessary documentation for further consideration by all involved parties as an alternative concept for possible implementation and funding. It is the City's understanding that the City of Stillwater took similar action earlier this month.Please advise us if further clarification is nee. or a• 'tional action is necessary. 'egards is Jo•ion City • :t inistrator ,r„ Cc: City Council Members Ms.Gail Pundsack Mr.Todd Clarkowski,MNDOT Ms..Beth Bartz,SRF 411 ,___ • LAW OFFICES OF • Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling, P.L.L.P. 1835 Northwestern Avenue Abe F. Briggs Lammers Stillwater,Minnesota 55082 Lyle J.Eckberg Mark J.Vierling•+ (651) 439-2878 Thomas J.Weidner Paul A.Wolff Susan D.Olson+ FAX(651) 439-2923 (1944-1996) David K.Snyder Writer's direct dial number: Sean P.Stokes (651) 351-2118 *Qualified Neutral Arbitrator Baiers C Heeren *Certified Real Estate Specialist Laura L.Domagala +Qualified Neutral Mediator Joshua D.Christensen August 3, 2004 Mr. Rick Arnebeck ©V py East Metro Area Manager Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Re: City of Oak Park Heights; TH36/St. Croix River Bridge Crossing Project; Municipal Consent Process . Dear Mr. Arnebeck: Your correspondence,responding to our inquiry as to the Department's position on the legislative amendments to the municipal consent process,has been forwarded to this office for review. The Department's position that this is a new project is not one that is shared by the City of Oak Park Heights. We note with interest that both the Federal DOT and the Wisconsin DOT have maintained the identical project numbers on the St. Croix Bridge River Crossing project, as is outlined in the draft EIS statement that we have been provided. We also note that the Minnesota number assigned to this project is similar to that which existed back in 1995 and that the draft EIS has the entire history dating back to at least the 1980's It is the position of the City of Oak Park Heights that the legislation adopted by the legislature,modifying the municipal consent process, specifically exempted existing projects from the effect of the new legislation. The legislative record of that amendment will show that the St. Croix River project was specifically discussed as one of those projects. It is further the City's position that this is not two projects but one. Trunk Highway 36 improvements are inseparable from the Bridge proposals and they will be treated by the City as indivisible. If it is the position of the Department not to recognize the former legislative 4, process as being controlling relative to municipal consent, we ask the Department to specifically outline and detail for us each and every one of the specific factual instances that it claims exist, to distinguish this project from that which was previously provided to the City of Oak Park Heights and rejected by the 1997/1998 federal court decision. s 41) Mr. Rick Arnebeck August 3,2004 Page 2 As this matter is of unique interest to the City of Oak Park Heights, we will take whatever action is necessary to enforce the legislative exemption exception that has been provided within the most recent legislative enactment on municipal consent process, unless your Department can provide us with specific and compelling factual circumstances to indicate that this project was intended to be included within the existing municipal consent process. Further, although we are more than willing to discuss the issue with the Department of Transportation, given the existing timetables that have been advocated on this project by your Department,we feel it imperative that this matter be resolved promptly; if not between the parties, then otherwise as may be required. We look forward to your response. Yours ery truly, ark J. Vierling MJV/mkr / c: Eric Johnson, City Administrator✓ Honorable David Beaudet, Mayor, City of Oak Park Heights • City of Oak Park Heights • 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 August 2, 2004 Mr. Rick Arnebeck MNDOT- Metro Division Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE: Concept F -Buttonhook Design Dear Rick, As you know,the City of Oak Park Heights did participate in the Partnership Study that endeavored to seek alternatives and/or options for future STH 36 alignments. Several concepts were discussed and outlined in general form.Upon the conclusion of such • Partnership Study,the City was asked to affirm the conclusion that Concept F was the preferred choice of those options offered,but subject to further refinement and study. ' ct t The City did give concept(tentative)approval to Concept F subject to refinements and further study by the Technical Advisory Group(TAG) .The TAG investigated impacts, land takings,costs, and other conceivable ramifications.It was anticipated and represented that at the conclusion of the TAG process the TAG would make a final recommendation to the Partnership Communities that the Concept F was still the primary choice along with supporting information as to why that Concept was viable. The TAG group was not able to come to any substantiative conclusion or further refinement and made no recommendation to the City. Presumably they recognized the problems associated with Concept F as it had been evolving before them and their inability to resolve those conflicts precluded their recommendation. Additionally, since the origination of the old Concept F the City has experienced the development of several projects that would be constructed in the old/new Concept F corridor,namely Ruby Tuesday's,a 6,000 square-foot shopping center,the Oakgreen Village North Townhome Development and the City has received an application for the East Oaks Property development(two office buildings and 30 condominiums). Lastly, and not insignificantly,the format of Concept F as originally discussed does no longer resemble the format now being presented by MNDOT as Concept F. Accordingly, City's, it is the Ci ' present position that the impacts of Concept F are • approve Concept unacceptable and the City does not app t F. The land and business losses are p excessive and the resultin g construction and layout would be overly burdensome to City s - V - I kresidents.Lastly,the City has to date not been given a commitment from MNDOT that the utility relocations,that are necessary,will be provided by the overall project funding IPand not paid for by City tax or rate payers. Until such time as the City of Oak Park Heights commits to a particular STH 36 design, any discussions in the SDEIS document, or similar documents,need to properly indicate that such STH 36 design is still in discussion and that no City commitment has been provided. The City will certainly consider alterative options when these are presented along with the appropriate data and mitigation commitments. ,s, n i ty 4 1 4 k ator Cc: City Council Members Mark Vierling, City Attorney 411 Todd Clarkowski,MNDOT Beth Bartz, SRF 1 411, 1 1,4 , 4 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 July 22, 2004 To: Todd Clarkowski,MNDOT ***via facsimile - 651-582-1308 Copy To: Beth Bartz, SRF Consulting ***via facsimile - 763-475-2429 Rick Arnebeck,MNDOT ***via facsimile- 651-582-1308 Jody Erikson, RESOLV ***via email -jerikson @resolv.org From: Eric Johnson, City Administrator • Dear Mr. Clarkowski, This letter includes two parts: Item 1) As requested,the City has the following commentary relative to the SDEIS /Economic Impact Analysis - Cooperating Agency Review Draft. We ask that these comments be considered and appropriately addressed in the document prior to the final revision of the document intended for publication. Item 2) A list of needed "Mitigations" that the City will require to be included in the Project. Item 1) Comments on the SDEIS /Economic Impact Analysis - Cooperating Agency Review Draft: • For the entire SDEIS and its attachments, any and all language pertaining to a final design layout of Hwy 36 (buttonhooks) shall need to be stated as fROPQSED. The City of Oak Park Heights has not committed to any draft layout, concept layout or final layout. And,that the City is still investigating alternative options for layout. • The entire Economic Impact Analysis as generally discussed in the SDEIS or under separate analysis completed by Economic Development Research Group is wholly inadequate and is rejected in total by the City of Oak Park Heights. At no point was the City of Oak Park Heights contacted to provide information for such analysis nor was it made specifically aware that such study was being undertaken. The analysis does not demonstrate that it took into account the all of the proposed and previous residential and commercial takings-a detailed analysis must be • provided that demonstrates the study methodology to determine final fiscal impact losses. There is a discrepancy between the SDEIS and the Economic Impact Analysis as received by the City, i.e. $35,000 annual tax revenue vs. $41,000, In either instance this study must be done with full concurrence with the City. We are unable to determine how these figures were derived. See Chp 14 of the SDEIS. There is no reference to employment losses and no reference to the boat launch impacts. There is no consideration of the loss of City Utilities or the relocation/replacement tY P expenses. The City recommends that a new study be commissioned and undertaken by a firm that is not related to any Department of Transportation and that is satisfactory to all parties. l • On page 1-9 paragraph 4,please strike the words "...and anticipated failure to obtain municipal consent on the project". i• On page 2-7 please clarify that the speed on Hwy 36 -eastbound-is posted at 65 mph 41 from 494/694 to Lake Elmo Ave; 60 mph from Lake Elmo Ave to Hwy 5; 50 mph after the Hwy 5 overpass. 3 • Provide and incorporate into the SDEIS crash rates at the intersection of HWY 36 and Lake Elmo Ave-prior to the installation of the traffic signals. • Provide and incorporate into the SDEIS the crash statistics for each intersection between Lake Elmo Ave and Osgood Ave -prior to the removal of the Advance Warnin g Flashers r • Chapter 2 should have footnotes to the PAC study. kg • On page 3-6 revise paragraph to state that a signal "shall be installed" at the intersection of Pickett Ave/TH 95/King Plant entrance -versus "if justified". • Discussion items on page 4-2 refer to the distances between the current frontage road and STH 36, specifically defining them as "very short";please revise such language to remove such subjective language and only utilize factual information in determining distances, such as minimum requirements and cite source of such requirement. , • The document does only discuss PEAK hourly traffic through the corridor,namely in • de Downtown Stillwater. Please expand such analysis to include data that utilizes and presents all twelve months, further broken down by daily and hourly usage, so the reader of the document can anticipate low-use of the corridor. • Page 4-19 discusses that the crash rate at the three intersections along STH 36 are "two to three times the state average". Please cite the State average within the body of g g Y the paragraph and cite source by footnote. • Comments on page 4-19 discuss that the proximity to the frontage road causes "confusion fii on t o drivers",please cite source and clarify this statement with factual data. • Comments made on page 5-2 relative to "could enhance community cohesion with the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities" should be supported with factual data, otherwise please remove the comment. • The City will provide MNDOT with an updated zoning map,please insert such ti/ current and factual land use map into the Document. (sent via US MAIL - 7-22-04) • Please identify whether the echo effect was taken into account. If sound barriers are found to be necessary how then does that effect the visual impacts,please identify that the project will bear this cost. Noise impacts are difficult to analyze until the actual construction is complete. There needs to be language that contemplates and outlines additional mitigation after the project is complete. Such additional discussion should also include the possibility of noise mitigation inside home/businesses. • Provide in the SDEIS a discussion of the Agreement with Xcel Energy relative to the removal of their moorings. How and why are these being removed, please state discussion history and cite documentation in appendices. • • Provide in the SDEIS a discussion/comments from the Federal Department of t Homeland Security regarding potential site locations of a boat ramp and its potential proximity to the Allen S. King plant- security risk. • The City has adopted its own Wetland Ordinance that must be fully complied with. In some instances the local Ordinance may be more restrictive than DNR or US Army Corps. There must be language inserted that outlines this requirement. (sent via US MAIL- 7-22-04) • Please insert into the SDEIS, maps that outline the ponds that lie only in Oak Park Heights along with a visual delineation of each ponds watershed source. Clearly identify where is the water coming from? • Chapter 4, the intersection of Oakgreen/Greeley is referred as Greeley/Northbrook 4 Blvd. (Oakgreen turns into Northbrook in Baytown, which is beyond the project area). • Chapter 5,page 7 shows Fairview Hospital- should be Lakeview Hospital. On page 8, Cover Park/Moelter Site (Xcel Park)needs to be in included in 5.1.2.4? • In Chapter 6, page 5 it shows TH5 (Manning). Manning is actually 15. Page 20 "City of Stillwater" "...designates the north side of TH36 to Osgood..." Stillwater actually only goes to Omaha,not Osgood. Then under" Oak Park Heights" "uses along the south side of TH36..." should actually show that OPH also covers a portion of the north side. S • Chapter 6, page 24, "Minnesota". Current City zoning for this area is 0-Open Space. There is another reference to this on Page 32. • • In Chapter 6,page 28, the date of the meeting should be June 16,not Feb. 19. Item 2) Mitigations To date,the City has identified the following list of anticipated mitigations. This list must be included in any and all discussion regarding required Project Mitigation - such as discussed in a "mitigation matrix". Additionally, the Memorandum of Understanding or future relevant documents must be amended to include, at a minimum, the following items: 1. All Utility Relocations shall be included in the Project and/or paid for by MNDOT. 2. All Traffic Signals and their maintenance must be provided by the Project or in the future by parties other than the City. 3. Frontage road reconstruction must occur and their maintenance must be provided by parties other than the City. 4. Funding must be identified and committed to in advance that protects and mitigates against negative impacts on City homes,businesses, etc that may stem from short- term and long-term noise, smoke, odor, construction activities and/or vibration. • 5. Deletion of the Boat Ramp. 6. All excess lands previously acquired and not necessary shall be returned to the tax rolls and its redevelopment shall be coordinated with the City housing and/or comprehensive plan. 7. Complete reconstruction of Scenic Overlook including its view. The City does thank you for the opportunity to review the Cooperating Agency Review Draft- SDEIS. Should you •. ,e any • her questions or need further clarification as to the City's anticipated r igat.ens ple.:- contact me as soon as possible. incerely nc Johnso City Admi, rator S Cc: City Council Members Mark Vierling, City Attorney • kt ' 5''re'''''''". t x "s& ea 1 y° h t y,k Y fw, " A 5 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Phone(651)439-4439 Facsimile(651)439-0574 • facsimile transmittal. • To: ,%op9 Ct r�eR'ote5K1. Fax: (5/ - /3a? From: Date: Re: Pages: 5 .h7.741,-/ • CC: Urgent or Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑Please Recycle Notes: • ig_4 JotyNLo) S 0************* -IND. XMT JOURNAL- **************** DATE JUL-22-2004 ***** TIME 12:02 ******** T TooD e. DATE/TIME = JUL-22-2004 12:00 JOURNAL No. = 47 COMM.RESULT = OK PAGECS) = 005/005 DURATION = 00:01'45 FILE No. = 186 MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION DESTINATION = 5821308 RECEIVED ID = / RESOLUTION = STD • -OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY - ************************************ -651 439 0574 - ***** - - ********* 1110 • f orr • • . • z "`zs �"S igit"a S+•''Xr i,53• f e 2° A,tea; <v!; a r, ',F �., asp - .'-7e",� ., �a- ^.K +5e`z 2,s t;v {"� *, * `�.a"r`. iz�" v ✓ .a.�r r .Y ,�'d ar4;3 *.= ra2 er tea; {:.., +v. ` .� �* .`3��h2x<�sa�r.'�,.sasrr.or,z,,."_..w ,,.rt'>,a, :.3a",d.Ae.>n.?&ue:.«.>.wem.....ra..,.d' ."".wn,4nwa.«.4k aS..oz'radu Au:i �,� 'd ^ R 44.41. City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Phone(651)439-4439 Facsimile(651)439-0574 facsimile transmittal it .. _ .,T.. (A' i! . ehe Fax: YS From: - Date: 7_ 2.2--c)/ Re: Pages: 110 CC: (Urgent For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle //4 Notes: - 1(G Jb/- /'J SO !'V • &'m Rmr2- ************* -IND. XMT JOURNAL- **************** DATE JUL-22-2004 ***** TIME 13:09 ******** DATE/TIME = JUL-22-2004 13:04 JOURNAL No. = 48 COMM.RESULT = OK PAGECS) = 006/006 DURATION = 00:02'05 FILE No. = 187 MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION DESTINATION = 17634752429 RECEIVED ID = / 7634752429 RESOLUTION = STD -OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY - ************************************ -651 439 0574 - ***** - - ********* ************* -IND. XMT JOURNAL- **************** DATE JUL-22-2004 ***** TIME 13:14 ******** DATE/TIME = JUL-22-2004 13:12 JOURNAL No. = 49 COMM.RESULT = OK PAGECS) = 004/004 DURATION = 00:01'23 FILE No. = 188 MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION DESTINATION = 4391577 RECEIVED ID = / 6514391577 RESOLUTION = STD -OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY - I ************************************ -651 439 0574 - ***** - - ********* _ _ • I • Eric A. Johnson From: Eric A. Johnson Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:34 PM To: Beth Bartz; todd.clarkowski @dot.state.mn.us; 'Rick Arnebeck' Cc: 'jerikson @resolv.org' Subject: Mitigation List and Comments to Preliminary SDEIS Todd, Beth and Rick: Here are comments from the City of Oak Park Heights. Please review. SDEIS comments and Mitigations... Thank You Eric Johnson • • • City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 July 22, 2004 To: Todd Clarkowski,MNDOT ***via facsimile- 651-582-1308 Copy To: Beth Bartz, SRF Consulting ***via facsimile- 763-475-2429 Rick Arnebeck,MNDOT ***via facsimile-651-582-1308 Jody Erikson,RESOLV ***via email-jerikson @resolv.org From: Eric Johnson, City Administrator • Dear Mr. Clarkowski, This letter includes two parts: Item 1) As requested,the City has the following commentary relative to the SDEIS /Economic Impact Analysis- Cooperating Agency Review Draft. We ask that these comments be considered and appropriately addressed in the document prior to the final revision of the document intended for publication. Item 2) A list of needed "Mitigations" that the City will require to be included in the Project. Item 1) Comments on the SDEIS/Economic Impact Analysis-Cooperating Agency Review Draft: • For the entire SDEIS and its attachments, any and all language pertaining to a final design layout of Hwy 36 (buttonhooks) shall need to be stated as PROPOSED. The City of Oak Park Heights has not committed to any draft layout,concept layout or final layout. And,that the City is still investigating alternative options for layout. • The entire Economic Impact Analysis as generally discussed in the SDEIS or under separate analysis completed by Economic Development Research Group is wholly inadequate and is rejected in total by the City of Oak Park Heights. At no point was the City of Oak Park Heights contacted to provide information for such analysis nor was it made specifically aware that such study was being ' • The analysis does not demonstrate that it took into account the all of the proposed and previous residential and commercial takings-a detailed analysis must be • provided that demonstrates the study methodology to determine final fiscal impact losses. There is a discrepancy between the SDEIS and the Economic Impact Analysis as received by the City, i.e. $35,000 annual tax revenue vs. $41,000,In either instance this study must be done with full concurrence with the City. We are unable to determine how these figures were derived. See Chp 14 of the SDEIS. There is no reference to employment losses and no reference to the boat launch impacts. There is no consideration of the loss of City Utilities or the relocation/replacement expenses. The City recommends that a new study be commissioned and undertaken by a firm that is not related to any Department of Transportation and that is satisfactory to all parties. • On page 1-9 paragraph 4,please strike the words "...and anticipated failure to obtain municipal consent on the project". • On page 2-7 please clarify that the speed on Hwy 36 -eastbound-is posted at 65 mph 41 from 494/694 to Lake Elmo Ave; 60 mph from Lake Elmo Ave to Hwy 5; 50 mph after the Hwy 5 overpass. • Provide and incorporate into the SDEIS crash rates at the intersection of HWY 36 and Lake Elmo Ave -prior to the installation of the traffic signals. • Provide and incorporate into the SDEIS the crash statistics for each intersection between Lake Elmo Ave and Osgood Ave-prior to the removal of the Advance Warning Flashers • Chapter 2 should have footnotes to the PAC study. • On page 3-6 revise paragraph to state that a signal "shall be installed" at the intersection of Pickett Ave/TH 95/King Plant entrance -versus "if justified". • Discussion items on page 4-2 refer to the distances between the current frontage road and STH 36, specifically defining them as "very short";please revise such language to remove such subjective language and only utilize factual information in determining distances, such as minimum requirements and cite source of such requirement. • The document does only discuss PEAK hourly traffic through the corridor,namely in Downtown Stillwater. Please expand such analysis to include data that utilizes and presents all twelve months,further broken down by daily and hourly usage, so the reader of the document can anticipate low-use of the corridor. • Page 4-19 discusses that the crash rate at the three intersections along STH 36 are "two to three times the state average". Please cite the State average within the body of • the paragraph and cite source by footnote. • Comments on page 4-19 discuss that the proximity to the frontage road causes "confusion to drivers",please cite source and clarify this statement with factual data. • Comments made on page 5-2 relative to "could enhance community cohesion with the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities" should be supported with factual data,otherwise please remove the comment. • The City will provide MNDOT with an updated zoning map,please insert such current and factual land use map into the Document. (sent via US MAIL -7-22-04) • Please identify whether the echo effect was taken into account. If sound barriers are found to be necessary how then does that effect the visual impacts,please identify that the project will bear this cost. Noise impacts are difficult to analyze until the actual construction is complete. There needs to be language that contemplates and outlines additional mitigation after the project is complete. Such additional discussion should also include the possibility of noise mitigation inside home/businesses. • Provide in the SDEIS a discussion of the Agreement with Xcel Energy relative to the removal of their moorings. How and why are these being removed,please state discussion history and cite documentation in appendices. • • Provide in the SDEIS a discussion/comments from the Federal Department of Homeland Security regarding potential site locations of a boat ramp and its potential proximity to the Allen S. King plant -security risk. • The City has adopted its own Wetland Ordinance that must be fully complied with. In some instances the local Ordinance may be more restrictive than DNR or US Army Corps. There must be language inserted that outlines this requirement. (sent via US MAIL - 7-22-04) • Please insert into the SDEIS,maps that outline the ponds that lie only in Oak Park Heights along with a visual delineation of each ponds watershed source. Clearly identify where is the water coming from? • Chapter 4,the intersection of Oakgreen/Greeley is referred as Greeley/Northbrook Blvd. (Oakgreen turns into Northbrook in Baytown,which is beyond the project area). • Chapter 5, page 7 shows Fairview Hospital - should be Lakeview Hospital. On page 8, Cover Park/Moelter Site (Xcel Park)needs to be in included in 5.1.2.4? • In Chapter 6,page 5 it shows TH5 (Manning). Manning is actually 15. Page 20 "City of Stillwater" "...designates the north side of TH36 to Osgood..." Stillwater actually only goes to Omaha,not Osgood. Then under " Oak Park Heights" "uses along the south side of TH36..." should actually show that OPH also covers a portion of the north side. • Chapter 6,page 24, "Minnesota". Current City zoning for this area is 0-Open Space. There is another reference to this on Page 32. • • In Chapter 6, page 28, the date of the meeting should be June 16,not Feb. 19. Item 2)Mitigations To date,the City has identified the following list of anticipated mitigations. This list must be included in any and all discussion regarding required Project Mitigation - such as discussed in a "mitigation matrix". Additionally,the Memorandum of Understanding or future relevant documents must be amended to include,at a minimum,the following items: 1. All Utility Relocations shall be included in the Project and/or paid for by MNDOT. 2. All Traffic Signals and their maintenance must be provided by the Project or in the future by parties other than the City. 3. Frontage road reconstruction must occur and their maintenance must be provided by parties other than the City. 4. Funding must be identified and committed to in advance that protects and mitigates against negative impacts on City homes, businesses, etc that may stem from short- term and long-term noise, smoke,odor, construction activities and/or vibration. 5. Deletion of the Boat Ramp. 6. All excess lands previously acquired and not necessary shall be returned to the tax rolls and its redevelopment shall be coordinated with the City housing and/or comprehensive plan. 7. Complete reconstruction of Scenic Overlook including its view. The City does thank you for the opportunity to review the Cooperating Agency Review Draft- SDEIS. Should you have any further questions or need further clarification as to the City's anticipated mitigations please contact me as soon as possible. Sincerely, Eric Johnson City Administrator • Cc: City Council Members Mark Vierling, City Attorney • • • • • * k b • .. a ; n f ,„. , . i 1 n '47 r F £rie4 x e,k741 v M - - Lek” ?t3 K P '.�R .. .f' r ^ , bC � � , a i" 7% x � x ? � .ay y 1 3Z v � ,� m, !h''..-''''?0,--7,7-1.4.1K 3 , r r r� " 7, : tza givz #av-' ° '" i , , l xr°" kr,Y . " ` r v,. II City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Phone(651)4394439 Facsimile(651)439-0574 facsimile transmittal GS1 - 5 '2- /3or �eDA c4M-1LKoWS141 — 3 -Y7S-2v�q 0 E rM 131412- To: Ni Gk /�/'N£ig 6CIC Fax: From: Date: Re: Pages:' • CC: Urgent ❑For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑Please Recycle Notes: �Al2W 4 2 7b D/� T kt 4e i( e" Q al o C4144ev�.1 Y di s GvSS► n co n�rn e.v�. l� { �D al s (icc1 P vim, / Ctf tt (1` 'v `wt cx:d C re5c, ,t i Ni petil(., e2 04- rn7 7 Con 1s14 a 71//Do • he/rw�A l r a ("eVIS- �p45e 2 k Yo f' gi;KsJsoY) • Rtv See Pa"t 2- The analysis does not demonstrate that it took into account the all of the proposed and previous residential and commercial takings- a detailed analysis must be • provided that demonstrates the study methodology to determine final fiscal impact losses. There is a discrepancy between the SDEIS and the Economic Impact Analysis as received by the City, i.e. $35,000 annual tax revenue vs. $41,000, In either instance this study must be done with full concurrence with the City. We are unable to determine how these figures were derived. See Chp 14 of the SDEIS. There is no reference to employment losses and no reference to the boat launch impacts. There is no consideration of the loss of City Utilities or the relocation/replacement expenses. The City recommends that a new study be commissioned and undertaken by a firm that is not related to any Department of Transportation and that is satisfactory to all parties. • On page 1-9 paragraph 4,please strike the words "...and anticipated failure to obtain municipal consent on the project". • On page 2-7 please clarify that the speed on Hwy 36-eastbound-is posted at 65 mph • from 494/694 to Lake Elmo Ave; 60 mph from Lake Elmo Ave to Hwy 5; 50 mph after the Hwy 5 overpass. • Provide and incorporate into the SDEIS crash rates at the intersection of HWY 36 and Lake Elmo Ave -prior to the installation of the traffic signals. • Provide and incorporate into the SDEIS crash D IS the c ash statistics for each intersection between Lake Elmo Ave and Osgood Ave-prior to the removal of the Advance Warning Flashers • Chapter 2 should have footnotes to the PAC study. • On page 3-6 revise paragraph to state that a signal "shall be installed" at the intersection of Pickett Ave/TH 95/King Plant entrance-versus "if justified". • Discussion items on page 4-2 refer to the distances between the current frontage road and STH 36, specifically defining them as "very short"; please revise such language to remove such subjective language and only utilize factual information in determining distances, such as minimum requirements and cite source of such requirement. • The document does only discuss PEAK hourly traffic through the corridor,namely in • Downtown Stillwater. Please expand such analysis to include data that utilizes and presents all twelve months, further broken down by daily and hourly usage,so the reader of the document can anticipate low-use of the corridor. 4110************** -IND. XMT JOURNAL- **************** DATE JUL-22-2004 ***** TIME 13:34 ******** DATE/TIME = JUL-22-2004 13:33 JOURNAL No. = 52 COMM.RESULT = OK PAGECS) = 002/002 DURATION = 00:00°55 FILE No. = 191 MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION DESTINATION = 17634752429 RECEIVED ID = / 7634752429 RESOLUTION = STD 410 -OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY - ************************************ -651 439 0574 - ***** - - ********* 4110************** -IND. XMT JOURNAL- **************** DATE JUL-22-2004 ***** TIME 13:38 ******** DATE/TIME = JUL-22-2004 13:37 JOURNAL No. = 54 COMM.RESULT = OK PAGECS) = 002/002 DURATION = 00.00°53 FILE No. = 194 MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION DESTINATION = 5821308 RECEIVED ID = RESOLUTION = STD -OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY - ************************************ -651 439 0574 - ***** - - ********* 410 1110************** -IND. XMT JOURNAL- **************** DATE JUL-22-2004 ***** TIME 13:40 ******** DATE/TIME = JUL-22-2004 13:39 JOURNAL No. = 55 COMM.RESULT = OK PAGECS) = 002/002 DURATION = 00:00'49 FILE No. = 195 MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION DESTINATION = 5821302 RECEIVED ID = / 6515821302 RESOLUTION = STD -OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY - ************************************ -651 439 0574 - ***** - - ********* t.. ,* 4' of Oak Park Heights City o Oa hts g 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 July 29`1,2004 Mr.Todd Clarkowski MNDOT Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Rod B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE:Information for your reference Dear Mr.Clarkowski, Enclosed you will fmd four documents: 1. Updated City Zoning Map 2. Updated City Land Use Map-(as it relates to the City's Comprehensive Plan) • 3. City Wetland Ordinance-406 4. Park and Trail Maps - (with updates,however please keep in mind that these items are subject to change as these are the best maps that the City has and are,admittedly,somewhat dated) If you have any questions s. the•e ite,& p1-ase - free to contact me. •egar/ ". cJo u. ,n City A I c istrator Cc: Rick Arnebeck,MNDOT (no enclosures) Beth Bartz,SRF (no enclosures) Weekly Notes (no enclosures) II Eric A. Johnson From: Rick Amebeck[Rick.Amebeck @dot.state.mn.us] • Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 8:56 AM To: Eric A. Johnson; Todd Clarkowski; bbartz @srfconsulting.com Cc: jerikson©resolv.org Subject: Re: Mitigation List and Comments to Preliminary SDEIS Thanks Eric I got your changes that were faxed in too the author is more than willing to meet to discuss by teleconference based on your comments on the economic study, I think this might be a good idea. Is there a good time that would work for you? We can set it up. Rick "Eric A. Johnson" <eajohnson Ca�cityofoakparkheights.com> 07/22/04 01:33PM »> Todd, Beth and Rick: Here are comments from the City of Oak Park Heights. Please review. «SDEIS comments and Mitigations DRAFT comments.doc» Thank You Eric Johnson S • Minnesota Department of Transportation 01.,.�,�A Metropolitan Division • Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 July 8, 2004 Mr. Mark Vierling Law Offices of Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff&Vierling, P.L.L.P. 1835 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Vierling: Subject: Municipal Consent This is in response to your letter of May 25, 2004 regarding the Municipal Consent process for the proposed St Croix River Crossing. Mn/DOT looks forward to working with the cities of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater through the Municipal Consent process, after a preferred alternative has been selected and approved by the FHWA. Municipal Consent is a step in the project development process, which occurs after the Ill Final EIS and Record of Decision on the preferred alternative have been approved. Upon approval of a preferred alternative and Record of Decision from the Stakeholder Mediation Process currently underway, assuming a build alternative is selected, MnDOT will then initiate the Municipal Consent process for the preferred alternative. Assuming that the new preferred alternative will require changes in access, capacity, or right of way; it is Mn/DOT's position that the alternatives under consideration at this time are different from the 1995 preferred alternative and therefore would be a different project under the municipal consent process. Therefore, municipal consent will be pursued under the current legislation. I would welcome the opportunity when there is sufficient information available, to begin discussions on the ramifications of the alternatives under consideration and the issues that should be addressed during the municipal consent process. Please let me know who will represent the city at these discussions and I will take the initiative to set up the first meeting. Sincerely, /V__, . Rick Arnebeck, East Metro Area Manager ,— Cc: Eric Johnson, City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights An equal opportunity employer - J LAW OFFICES OF Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff& Vierling, P.L.L.P. 1835 Northwestern Avenue James F.Lammers Stillwater,Minnesota 55082 Lyle J.Eckberg Robert G.Briggs * (1916-2003) Mark J.Vierling•-4)- ( )651 439-2878 Thomas J.Weidner Paul A.Wolff Susan D.Olson+ FAX (651) 439-2923 (1944-1996) David K.Snyder Timothy M.Kelley Writer's direct dial number: •Qualified Neutral Arbitrator Sean P.Stokes (651) Real Estate Specialist Baiers C.Heeren (651)351-2118 +Qualified Neutral Mediator Laura L.Domagala Joshua D.Christensen July 6, 2004 Councilperson Mary McComber © 7V City Hall 14168 Oak Park Boulevard P. O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 i Project Re: St. Croix River Bridge of ect Dear Mary: I am enclosing a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed in • 1995 between the State of Minnesota and the City, relative to the bridge project. In particular, you will want to pay attention on page 6, paragraph 16 of the Memorandum. The background to understand that paragraph fully is that at that point in time, MnDOT had agreed that they would make the relocation of the utilities a part of their project, but they would not design the project. The compromise was that the city engineer would design the information as to how, when and where to redesign the city utilities that would be disrupted by the state's construction project. They agreed to reimburse the City for the consulting engineer time to provide this design information. However, by that date, MnDOT had committed to the total replacement of those utilities that would be disrupted. Within that time frame,the project differed in the alignment from what is being considered presently. It is possible that the disruption to utilities was not as extensive as it may now be. Dennis Postler might have more background information on this than I, from an engineering perspective. In any event, I hope you will find that the Memorandum of Information is helpful for your purposes, and if you need any further information,please feel free to contact me. Yours very truly, Mark J. Vierling MJV/mkr Enclosure BLIND c: Eric Johnson NOV-18-1998 13:48 CITY OF OPH P.02/09 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)( ) made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State" and the City of Oak Park Heights , hereinafter referred to as the "City" ; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the State has prepared and presented layout plans to the City for the reconstruction of the State Highway 36 Corridor in the City and the construction of a bridge crossing the St . Croix River from the City; and, WHEREAS, during the review process, regarding said plans, a number of issues have arisen which the parties hereto have . discussed, and desire to resolve to writing; and, WHEREAS, Minn. Stat . 161. 20 Subd. 2 (1994) authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and improving the Trunk Highway System. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto state as follows : 1 . Storm water pond between Highway S and Norell Avenue. The State needs to acquire approximately . 88 acres for storm water pording in the area between Highway 5 and Norell Avenue. The State is willing to participate in the regi' al storm pond that would be necessary to serve Menards, Autumn Ridg Subdivision and other developments in the area and the State has agree o pay its pro- rata share of the land costs . The State also hereby agree ,to pay pro-rata staff costs to the City for designing the state portion of NOV-18-1998 13:49 CITY OF OPH P.03/09 pond should the city desire to do so. It is understood and agreed • that funding for the State participation would not be available until fiscal 1997 (July 1, 1996) . The State has the option as an alternative to participating in a regional storm water pond described above, to independently acquire such property as is needed for the State storm water ponding needs in which the City will not participate. 2 . Wetland Mitigation. The State intends to use a portion of the DNR Wildlife Management Area land located on the southerly edge of the City for wetland mitigation. 3 . Trailways . It is understood that the State has not shown on its plans all of the sidewalks and trails that are proposed to be constructed, because the State prefers to be in a position to propose alternatives in areas as potential problems arise. All trailways and sidewalks will be designed to the extent possible so as to coordinate with the City' s existing trailway, sidewalk and pedestrian traffic plans . The State shall acquire such right-of - way as may be necessary in order to construct such a trail and sidewalk system so long as it does not have a substantial adverse impact on any existing business . 4 . Frontage Road and at Oakgreen - 36 Intersection. The State plans to remove the building located on the Dielentheis • property between the future frontage road and Highway 36 . 5 . Design at the Frontage Road at Oakgreen - 36 Intersection. The City' s consulting engineer has agreed with the States design of this intersection. The State will provide 2 NOV-18-1998 13 49 CITY OF OPH P.04/09 additional information regarding the amount of the Dielentheis land needed for the frontage road. The State will convey to the City, in the States discretion, the land in this area not needed by the State for the City' s use as a part of the trail system. The State hereby agrees to mitigate any wetland losses from this area, the State intends to design a storm water pond within their frontage road area because of the large size of the area. 6 . Road between. Osgood and Highway 95 . It is understood and agreed that this road would have a maximum six (6°%) percent grade; be approximately 30 feet from the State right-of-way;g y; and will be 28 feet wide with curb and gutter; including trail or sidewalk storm sewer would be required so that no water would flow onto the flyash. The State will be involved in the design of the road and will later contract to reimburse the City for all construction and design costs . This road shall be built over the ash to avoid its removal . 7 . Soccer Fields. It is understood that the State will not provide money for the loss of soccer fields, but it will reconvey excess property to the City for public purposes at two other locations. The two existing locations that are being considered for reconveyance are along Beach Road near Cover Park and along Lookout Trail . 8 . Traffic Lights on Highway 95 . It is understood and agreed the traffic signals cannot be placed on State Highways unless they meet signal warrants and are justified. The State expects that the Highway 36 exit and entrance ramps onto Highway 411 3 NOV-18-1998 13:49 CITY OF OPH P.05i09 95, along with the Highway 36 North frontage road connection to 0 Highway 95, will be justified. It is understood that the Highway 36 South frontage road connection to Highway 95 will not meet those standards . The State hereby agrees that if it determines that a traffic light needs to be installed in the future, it will pursue a variance process in order to pay 10CA of the costs, but it cannot guarantee that the variance will be granted. 9 . Park and Ride Facility. It is understood and agreed that the State will build a park and ride facility only if there is metropolitan bus serve to the area. It is understood that this issue cannot be resolved until the final design stage . In the event a park and ride facility is not constructed, the State has agreed to consider building a smaller parking lot that could be used for informal car pooling. 10 . South Frontage Road. As part of this project, the South Frontage Road will not directly connect to Highway 95, but will be constructed along the existing 59th Street right-of-way and connect to Stagecoach Trail, traffic would then proceed south to Stagecoach Trail, turn left at 56th Street and access Highway 95 at the new Picket Avenue connection. The South frontage road will be moved further to the north to increase the amount of buffer space for those residents living on 59th Street . 11 . Comrnrehensive Landscape Plan. The conceptional landscaping plan will be provided as part of the final construction plan which will be approved by the City at the same time. The City 4 NOV-18-1998 13:49 CITY OF OPH P.06/09 will be involved in the development of the conceptual and final 410 landscaping plan through the design review committee. 12 . Scenic Overlook. The State agrees to review the washout condition under the scenic overlook and to make the necessary improvements to remedy this condition, such plans may include a new retaining wall for support . 13 . Beach Road Alignment. Beach Road north of Highway 36 will be moved slightly to the east to provide more buffer space between the road and the existing townhomes. 14 . Lookout Trail . to the extent that proper drainage allows, the State will widen and resurface Lookout Trail as part of this project, issues affecting drainage shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 15 . Property Acquisition. The State will set up a field office in one of the homes to be acquired in lower Oak Park Heights in order to address questions from concerned citizens and to have someone on site to attempt to resolve problems as they occur. The State will provide the City with a list of properties which have been or will be acquired. The list will state when the properties are to be vacated and the list will be periodically updated for the benefit of the City. The State has and will provide the City information affecting the relocation process, options and benefits for affected homeowners and businesses . No homes shall be moved by the State or its assigns or transferees without written permit from the City, the State shall 411 5 • NOV-18-1998 13 49 CITY OF OPH P.07iee inform all buyers of this condition. 16 . City Utilities Disrupted by Construction. The City consulting Engineer will provide the State with design information as to where and how to redesign those City utilities which will be moved or disrupted by the construction process of the State . The State will reimburse the City for the consulting Engineer' s time in providing this design information. 17 . City Property. State shall purchase the City owned parcel (see attached) . The acquisition cost shall be based on fair market value but shall not be less than $32, 000 . 00 . 18 . Turn Back of Frontage Roads . Any turn back of frontage roads to the City will be subject to future agreements . The City has agreed to accept the turn back of the frontage road between State Highway 5 and Norell Avenue as a part of the 58th Street 0 Cooperative Agreement . 19 . Construction Staging. It is understood and agreed that a task force of local governments or some other similar arrangement will be formed so that the local governments affected by the construction project will have input at an early stage of the construction staging planning process . The City shall set a time and place to invite the interested parties to a meeting regarding the formation of such a task force. 20 . Bridge Noise Reduction. The City and State shall continue to meet and discuss this issue as it remains unresolved. 21 . Welcome to Minnesota Sign. The State and City agree to work together in an effort to provide the City with land for its 411 6 NOV-18-1998 13 50 CITY OF OPH P.08/09 own identification sign. 22 . Portable Truck__ Weigh Station. The City and the State share a common concern with regard to overweight vehicles utilizing the Highway 36 corridor. For that purpose, the State agrees with the City that the proposed park and ride as shown on the layout plans provide sufficient room for detaining trucks and use as a portable weigh station. The City and the State agree to cooperatively work with the Minnesota State Patrol to periodically establish a portable weigh station and monitor truck traffic utilizing the Highway 36 corridor. 23 . Boat Access . The Department of Transportation agrees to cooperate with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) should the DNR ever decide to build a boat access at or near the Allen S. King Plant . 24 . The State' s financial obligation referenced in this MOU are subject to and conditioned upon the current availability of funds apportioned by the legislature for these purposes . Any financial obligations not covered in this MOU but for which funds are not currently available are unenforceable unless the legislature appropriates funds in the future for these purposes . 25 . MOU Approval . Before this MOU shall become effective, it shall be approved by a City Council Resolution and receive approval of the State and City offices. 7 ' NOV-18-1998 13 50 CITY OF OPH P.09/09 • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CITY OF OAK ARK GHTS BY: arbara H. O'Neal,—Mayor Date:_ --l 5 "',c- By: CDivisio Eng g eer 'ichael J. Robertson 67/7/5'S Administrator • 8 TOTAL P.09 LAW OFFICES OF Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff& Vierling, P.L.L.P. 1835 Northwestern Avenue • James F.Lammers Stillwater,Minnesota 55082 Lyle J.Eckberg Robert G.Briggs* (1916-2003) Mark J.Vierling*¢ (651) 439-2878 ________ Thomas J.Weidner Paul A.Wolff Susan D.Olson 4 FAX(651) 439-2923 (1944-1996) David K.Snyder Timothy M.Kelley Writer's direct dial number: *Qualified Neutral Arbitrator Sean P.Stokes (651) Real Estate Specialist Baiers C.Heeren 351-2118 +Qualified Neutral Mediator Laura L.Domagala Joshua D.Christensen June 29, 2004 Mayor David Beaudet Councilmember Les Abrahamson 6400 Lookout Trail North 13990—56th Street North Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082 Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082 Councilmember Mark Swenson Councilmember Jack Doerr 14846 Upper 55th Street North 14520 Upper 56th Street Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082 Oak Park Heights,Minnesota 55082 Councilmember Mary McComber 5728 Penfield Avenue North ©0 frlf Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082 • Re: Economic Impact Analysis; St. Croix River Crossing, Trunk Highway 36/Wisconsin St. Rt. 64, as Prepared June 14, 2004 Dear Mayor and Council: rd At the Wednesday, June 23 staffing meeting, City received from Mr. Y, g g� tY Arnebeck the above-referenced document. That document purported to raise issues or discuss the economic impact of the St. Croix River crossing and highway 36 upgrade project. Although the project description has a section on the economy of the affected area and findings on the economic impacts,the document is wholly lacking in any discussion of the financial impact and detriment to either city as a result of this project. There is no detail relative to the economic loss to the City in utilities within the highway 36 corridor, which would have to be moved and replaced. Consequently,there is also no economic review or impact on the ability of the City to withstand the acquisitions that will necessarily occur as a result of this project, nor of the ability of the City to be able to withstand the cost of utilities relocation that is necessary to this project. Mr. Arnebeck acknowledged during the course of the meeting that the document did not address this, and emphasized that it is important for the City to take a proactive role in bringing these issues back to the table for discussion on funding of the various financial needs that the City will undoubtedly experience in such significant issues as relocating those utilities. Not withstanding future discussions, which may have indicated that funds will be available relative to the relocation of utilities, Mr. Arnebeck strongly indicated that unless federal dollars were specifically earmarked for that purpose, it would be exceedingly difficult for MnDOT to Mayor& Council June 29, 2004 Page 2 make any financial contribution to the City relative to the issue of a utility relocation, since there is no legal obligation to do so as a result of the past location of those utilities under permits that located them there to begin with, and MnDOT's desire for the right-of-way now that requires them to require their removal. Although I have not yet received same, I am further anticipating that the Department of Transportation's position relative to the legislative amendments enacted last year to the trunk highway consent provisions will be that this is a new project proposal, and it is not subject to the former trunk highway consent provisions of the statute, notwithstanding the caveat placed in the legislation of 2003 that may otherwise have applied to this project. Consequently, I anticipate that, as this matter moves forward,unless the City is successful in either federal or state lobbying to secure specific legislation to assist in the relocation of utilities and other detrimental municipal impacts that will ultimately occur as a result of this project, the position that the Department of Transportation will take in this matter is that it is not going to render financial assistance to the City on these critical issues. I also anticipate that the City will be in an adversarial position to MnDOT relative to the application of the trunk highway consent statute, and that we need to begin addressing those issues with MnDOT immediately. We should be potentially prepared to bring an action for declaratory judgment on those issues if those discussions do not prove fruitful. • I do wish to note that Mr. Arnebeck was very helpful in his discussions with staff, and very forthright in identifying these critical issues to the City of Oak Park Heights. Those discussions, however, highlight the fact that we are not dealing with individuals as much as we are dealing with agencies and bureaucracies. Unless specific written commitments are made either in legislation or in identifying or directing issues to the City of Oak Park Heights,there will be no commitment financially to the City. Regardless of positions on the Bridge/TH 36, I suggest the City review matters in work sessions with staff on these issues, and give direction on engagi• • ese iss•es into negotiations with federal and state agencies. Yours ve • y, Mar. J. Vierling MJV/mkr c: Eric Johnson, City Administrator • Ii 154/ Neel!, R cot°• bf 101414 Al/a e 6.91.46WE Sri — `mrsvor Cesyl5,03.4 11us l vt s It(.4.1 rioir It Slak IUpdc. n6 ii.ovs A) lb It # --t4el• ig 5, W k[/ 1 c6 to v. /iced L4 I N k fry—ic f 3O ce&i,S if, BOO WA-co DA I pit J 1;4 l k!. a!1 • 1� rt; T 3- .,J City of Oak Park Heights • 14168 Oak Park Blvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 June 1,2004 Rick Arnebeck,Regional Manager MnDOT Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 Dear Rick, Last week I received a two letters from Ms.Bridget Gumbold where she engaged a discussion with the City regarding the East Oaks Project and the Shoppes of Oak Park Heights. My issue of concern with her letters,as well as my follow-up conversation with her was that she indicated that the City must provide MNDOT with"...three complete copies of plats and two copies of other review documents including site plans.",so that MNDOT may perform the necessary reviews of projects that abut or utilize State highway systems.As you are aware,the City already does and will continue to strictly advise developers that they must seek MNDOT approval for various reasons,but it is not the City's obligation to provide such material to MNDOT for its review. Additionally,when reviewing projects,the City does take into account the basic aspects of a potential HWY 36 realignment,but the City cannot and does not base its approval or disapproval upon a project for • which the City has not granted Municipal Consent.The City is limited to making developers aware of the project and its possible ramifications.To date I believe we have been successful in communicating a potential HWY 36 project to all current developers and how they relate to their proposals. Lastly,her letter also indicates that the City has,"...passed resolutions supporting and directing further refinement of Concept F".While the City has passed a resolution tentatively approving the"concept"of Concept F,our approval was not a unilateral acceptance of Concept F.I have again attached the resolution for clarification purposes. Please call if you hav y questions,(but you probably have heard this before) R arils, Cc: Weekly Notes ' ��1NESpT D° t Minnesota Department of Transportation OF7q0 Metropolitan Division RA�' Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 • r;77v71-- May 21,2004 Judy Holst k 14168 Oak Park Blvd. PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 SUBJECT: The Shoppes of Oak Park Heights Mn/DOT Review#P03-092 South of TH 36,East of Krueger Lane and West of Norell Ave Oak Park Heights,Washington Co. Control Section 8114 Dear Mr. Richards: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. Before any further development,please address the following issues: • As you are aware, Mn/DOT has been working with the city on improvements to TH 36. The preferred alternative may impact the northeast corner of this development. Please see the attached preliminary design. In addition, The TH 36 Partnership Study recommended • "Concept F" has been included, which is east of this development. Please contact Todd Clarkowski, Mn/DOT's Area Engineer at (651) 582-1169, if you have any questions about coordinating this refined Concept F with any site development plans in this area. • Both the Mn/DOT Access and Drainage permits have been issued for this development. If you have any questions regarding these permits please contact Keith VanWagner in Mn/DOT's Permit section at(651) 582-1443. • Mn/DOT's Survey section has reviewed the plat. Please send a copy of the final plat for Mn/DOT review to the following address: Brad Canaday Mn/DOT—Metro East Surveys 3485 Hadley Ave.N. Oakdale,Minnesota 55128 As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to: Development Reviews Mn/DOT-Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,Minnesota 55113 An equal opportunity employer Development Reviews Mn/DOT-Metro Division Waters Edge 111 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's 30-day review and response process to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. If you have any questions regarding this review feel free to contact me at(651)582-1378. Sincerely, r „,„ alp Brigid Gomb 4 Senior Planner Copy: Dan Parks/Westwood Mike Welling/Washington County Surveyor Wayne Sandberg/Washington County Joe Lux/Washington County Scott Richards/Oak Park Heights Planner • j I I 1 1,..0-1=1 I I I I I I I 1 0./i I 11 I '/- '4. 11 p, -< :: -- - T,,, i „, . , I. r.., euamnx 1- 1 I.L. I_r-.,f N 1 I1 / I�Y' I '"a A To�X,. ,___ rig,' rr�'i fg� 0 �'V-� ; I 11 °9- ,+1 I Ii l_l 11 ,777777T lC I I I O -Iiiiiiiii 3 !L� { I j i i 9 _ •. �� I I I I I I I I cccyyy O ,-_:,_-,-_4, c __ ‘,......:,,iii-. jfrj) 0) , - l L, -�S .III I I I I I I III I I I -�I I"� , TRAIL ` /OC779'0 ' --- ^__ O 1yl I I I-1 ICI I I Ir_ = � I■'lll�■ 1 ■■■�I�0 og -- - - -----" I - - -. 0 IIII 11, 001,1. •!R� — .._ �1r 14.0' TNRU/RT � ��—MOINE■■�,'�E 14.0' THUR 44.1 5 .� 41-12 0' THRU --- _�.I�.,,III,�g■�,'a _, ° ��I■� Ate_ —js a-- — ■�•il_—� �■I I■ice\ ' ----,:2707 THRU y -►14 0 THOU -�.I.11■.'I1.■■i,•m 1111- 14.0 THRU:/T_ o yi4 0' THRU — -� w� ` M. ,T iio° X I o Xm o° Z I 1 -x S.° 1 I X I °= i / .:1 z� �1 30•R I ' cc a I t I •\.R I 0 I N 44 e / 5, / .ip # G.-.) ! e NawAs i am ay \ I I,`I. O I . -.I. 16.0' /o, I' w`/ O I m 3 � I' OSGOOD AVE.N. }4-X.XXXA/452P/XX,XXXADT (1 \ ` • Pq o 4N X.XXXA/4.2P/XX,XXXADT \ I ``\\ 'r X.XXXA/77P/XX•XXXAOT \\ 1 p 0 1 I I I x N ii v .. s r T i' ? Z 1 = TO N ��~ ' D o D re b` • < :po rT < m yyy - ^ N 3X o N A p XA X O m I Z • I coo°- 1 k �� Go • ,1s� X7 I tl ,,\\,,,. o xua \ zo , , ‘ .o ...„, 4,. .„ ,,, , I , 1 T q4 I r xII: t zoo "R �7 LD _ 16. �xs ' 50'R i 4` . 1 ` S7 w F I 11 Ix ISO I I,,/4{,q is A I/ I 1 , / / lOO IYRII 0 / / I / / // 11 1 0 I/ l/ l 1 1 , T l I /l l !0 , / / 9 . I I 1 % /l / lJ I 1 I I ' M / 1/ ,l / I ■1 'i i II/ / I Z i /�i i r pit • / / /, ,/ ,1 i I 11 'i , . /_h . v-- ---V 1 / r. , . 11‘1�� 0 ,..,) ,i iI i/i i !:. ' \,.s,„ CI1 it/,ii, i I Ts.4 i; � —I CT— I / Il /�{ / — c . III I W 1111 41°0 1 I I ) I/' ir Y Mil tt I. /I. 1 , I ._ il , 10 . \ j \ , ' ', I •," '1„,-I LAI ' • Y-,I '1/4.A ,..I , ' al■ I t CO \ • , I • • --I , • 2 t • -, \ T I, 1 .2; a • i . • - -'',:', t t . ,. . 10' '..I...--1,,,, .,,, I (,)„1 II-1 ' - -' 1.4'01. '"F Ir..00--- -'• - -',2-F'''9‘1, - -- ----- - 1- -I--- ------------------------- --- __—____—____------------- ---H ..._, 4, ' • i. p-1 ....... r ,.. __17„_...;______„.„-4:.,- - -i--_-_-----. --- it-- _,-- ..f.- I,_,--,-,iii- 11.11 717, ;1.-1 4 i- ■ ( ,1 ' 1 ( ( ii k3 11 ,, , , , , , , , , , ( 1 , , , , , , ; ', ''■ ■ 1 'r ■ ■ , ■ 'I l i V -1 • 1j ' I I gi 'it I! 14 li; - I I ',1',',.i,li,', ', : ii,',.',', ', ', : i, 1 l i 1, ti . 1 1 .1 1 1 -, „ , „ ,„ „ „ , ,„ , ,,„ „ „ „ „ „ , , il 1 1 ; i, , , , .1 1.1114.1.1.1:11 I.I.A.11.1..1 1J.-1.11.1 I I ,,,,, ;II (-J ; ; ;; ; ' 1,1■,■;' ; 11; 11; 1 ; ;1;',-I-F,.A4, /..4.F.--' • 'z,, '', 1- -• - ',4 it "' .4' I I 1, , , , ,4#111! 4,•-t.----„-l t 1'17114;: ; ; ;t 1;; ;; ; ■ II; ■ 1 I 1I I II 1111111,10 I :,1 ,-, 'r. .,... Y2 ci 0 ° it I , it i'llr 1 ik .' •-• of • 1 • I , .)..! [1 ., il 1 , '%1 , 1 Pi , 1 , II I i— Iii, tl, 1 'Zi 1 1 -----.• 4,...:11 1 Az '' - I ..2./ ' , 1P-1 1;:‘1, '” 1'11 i '11 :1 ? '' I I * 1 '' ('--; - ''')- 6it t ci I . • , ,, ; mir , 11 ,11p .: - 'A , l'i.' ‘':: ., .1 ; It-II:fir; i't-; ;It; ;It,: . ■ ; t , ; ; tit; ;■ '-• , Zi ; '•4 NI:. I I !.1.' I 1.1 I ii 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I ■IIIIIIIIIiti , 1 II .t4 4 .4' 1 I L 1,4 v.,:,; 1 1 , . •,4 ,4,, : ''' 94 '-'''''•1‘•- l• .--'. '1" ) ''II I 1 -. . • - 1 • , , . , , , ,I, , :I, : I , rf , , : r ■ ■ i 1 4C-3,, :',■ , ' ','-1-sr.,1;,r,-.■ 1 k : . ill 1-:.• :.1 . ll 1 1 1 1 . 1 1. .t . ..111 ..1 III ( El , .. 1 1 , , - ,... ■ .:. ." • %1I, i ; • I 1 L '1' II,L ' 1 1 • : ■ 1 i : .■ i.' i ■ il 1, ',; i rti ■ l i r 1 I■ ■ F I I I F F i ■•Ie,I, i : 1 i I i.11.1 r • , , , If fl ,1411,4•1131111'-'111111 Illiitilniitililtr4,...4)".' ' ,.. 1::A-L'''r 1.1 11'!' 1.11.1.1 I'1_ ,,,,,,,.:,_ •.---•qi 2 1,..;1 I 1 1 64..1..I.1 ek., , ,..; , .:41 il , ,I]i ,,Iarl , II. , , ',I, , , , , , iiii. , , p1 , , , , .. ,-• ,•_111, ‘ .. . 1 : ■ 1 . .11...:341 ■ 1 , I , , , , III, ■ 1 ■■ ■ 1 , . ,,, j...,.. . .' iii. 4 1 .... .., • 44 kft 4 .. ••t'tt ., .0 : • ..." 1 t t ,; ,--; 1111111 lIfli ■ IIIIII.II / iIiiIlit. .1 ' '''' ••■!41. ;-,71';''. ''''':'! -A41 ' 1' ' F.1..L1 LI 1 1. 1.1_1..1.r.1„1 111 1..1 11 1 I 1 1 1 I 1_1AI I i 1.1 I I 1 LL,,prIt 1 q t J I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I II I I 11 I I I I I I I I I Z. I I I I I 1 'i.2..I .t ' ■ I \ • a -.>.'„ / / • ;4 ', la `r . , 1:t * -,, I I -......,,..._.......?,t/P.: • .. .. - V -- / 1 13 1 1 ", r--,, „." , , „„ ,,,,t, , ,,," ,,,, -.„ i- „ , , ,// 1..1-10.i.1 .11.1.1111ii 01.11. l 111.1.1.11141,-1J-11 I I I I :I I Ill I I. I :I I I I I I'l I:I II'' I I .' 1:-; ' .<1 .44 / ; • ■ I' ;,■;: I „i •1 13, . ': ■ 1 1',,,,z 1 ,.., '' °.•iii : 1 ', . • '7,,,,-- v- ,,tv, ! r, 1 „.4.„,, - , 4.• ,44,,/ • ,----:1,i- '' ' 16 f .:.■ ' i 1 LI; t ' in 3,4„1 dil, I ,,,il ; :I t 1 • t 411 1-,' '?4y,:." ,- ---:-.---- _,. t.11 : 1- 1 r.p,!.1 : 1 1 ‘, , 41,■ ;pi: 1 Iltit ■ I ' --1---r-, 1 ',' ,/ ,' , ' .".", ta:' I 111 ;I 1 ‘.,1111111 II ■q1JW1,11K II IIIIIII FiO:i''.: , -... /,' ' 1 ,..,)i. 1'1' t,_ ///,' TE-)1;-: ,1 ii i k f '1, ‘ " ,,, ,„.. , , „, „ „ , T;,,,, , . , 1 .. . 1 ■ 41, t: :i( c lf I 11.1 HI I, tr.1, , .4, I, J,4„)..,I,, , ',„ii ,1„1.„ , ,I„ , , , „ , `,k,,,„,,,,,■ ,„,r, , / -?...- IP eiti .. k. -° ,- •■■ ■ ,1111, ,,Iimirml, , t. 1 ■ , ((t 41: 'C'' ° '" - sol°520■-E 35313/--— , k 1 i■i i IleVe-1141111■ 1 :11IIIIi, tl ti : , . // \ .., : 1 .'I h l' ti It' 1 ( 1 — ; : . 1: I I / ' 4 1 i I ..- '',I 1 I ■ -... ; ,, ,,(-1 .■ ■ ■■ , , I....1.1 , , (, ,,, I, , , . , ■,1 ' ' • ,'1,...V:t : 1 ' I-I-Jill!--;1 1 1,1,-;:',1-1,■-;',I,; ;;',;-;;',I -,' . t . i 3 1 1 • , . . --v 1.11 , 111 , 1" 11 -1.. 1'. i '''''‘I '. ' •WNW, ' tic-) , I 1.1.1_1 I 1 I_I 1 l I.I I I 1 LI',I'I 1.1't I_I.1 I ' . • - L.,L-.. . __.,,,,0111,..,..,....... . .%1111611,.. - ,-".,.. ',:1#11.' III I---hii -- — - - 1--1 - 0 II vv. .. • ' ' • . 1 I • I 'I I ; ' , lb 0. 1 I 6 ... • . •,. . . ,._, ; , • ..1 r I ! , _4,, --..1---rfl--- '..,... -.. i . 1 , 1 , ' 1 \ -, ' i r, , ". i • ,:`,.'';'.6 ,1 _.., :‘ Joe. 1 ' ' , , ''II'. .10 i 0 ' ,..... 1',1 Mil• . . v..,::-..,,q. ,, ■ t, '1 ''''' • '''4. , '. : A .a , .-..1,‘: .- 1.• ' \ ' ., ..) :"-•a.,.., r i tv.e# • ,,,,, \ . C-`7,7.3 '', . . \ ,/ A. 0,; ,1 , , 11,t,5•9. . , T.?<-> r• 0,14NEs04 zF Minnesota Department of Transportation 01,. d' Metropolitan Division � oFA Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 p ' Roseville, MN 55113 4 4 May 21, 2004 _._... . . . .__ Judy Hoist 14168 Oak Park Blvd. PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 SUBJECT: East Oaks Planned Unit Development 2"d Addition,Mn/DOT Review#PO4-039 SE of TH 36 and Osgood Avenue Oak Park Heights,Washington County Control Section 8214 Dear Ms. Hoist: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced site plan. Mn/DOT's staff has the following comments. Please address these comments prior to further development. • As you are aware, in December of 2002, the TH 36 Partnership Study was completed. This Partnership Study was a joint effort with Oak Park Heights, Stillwater, Washington County, and Mn/DOT. The process this study went through included considerable public involvement and multiple representatives from each of the study partners. The TH 36 Partnership Study analyzed proposed improvements to TH 36 in Oak Park • Heights that included at-grade signalized intersections, grade-separated interchanges, and a combination of both. The TH 36 Partnership Study recommended "Concept F", which is a Buttonhook Interchange design at Norell Avenue and Osgood Avenue and an overpass provided at Oakgreen Avenue. The Cities of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater and the Washington County Board passed resolutions supporting and directing further refinement of "Concept F". A Technical Advisory Group (TAG)made up of representatives from each of the Partnership Study agencies were combined with representatives of the Greater Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce during the fall of 2003. This TAG went through a series of design refinements of Concept F, evaluating the benefits/dis-benefits of each refinement. It is this refined Concept F that is now being studied further in the St. Croix River Crossing Project's Supplemental Draft EIS. The St. Croix River Crossing Project's Supplemental Draft EIS and layout is anticipated to be submitted to the City of Stillwater and Oak Park Heights requesting municipal consent in June 2005. Between now and then, we urge the City of Oak Park Heights to consider the refined Concept F when approving any site development plans or plats adjacent to the TH 36 corridor. Planning for both future roadway systems and developments has occurred. This planning already has been successfully accomplished for the Walgreen's site and the Kohl's Phase 1 site in Oak Park Heights. As with the Walgreen's and Kohl's sites, the buildings were relocated and the accesses were modified so that there would not be future impacts to the sites if the refined Concept F design were built. • An equal opportunity employer A , !" In similar situations to this, other communities have established moratoriums on developments while the communities have addressed how the future roadway systems and developments should occur. Please contact Todd Clarkowski, Mn/DOT's Area Engineer, if you have any questions about coordinating this refined Concept F with any site development plans in this area. • Additional information must be submitted to determine whether a Mn/DOT Drainage permit will be necessary. The developer will need to submit before/after hydraulic computations for both 10 and 100 year rainfall events verifying that all existing drainage patterns and systems affecting Mn/DOT right of way will be perpetuated. The proposed development will need to maintain existing drainage rates(i.e.,the rate at which storm water is discharged from the site must not increase). . Please direct questions concerning these issues to Mary Lacho(651) 634-2111 of Mn/DOT's Water Resources section. • Any use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way requires a permit. Please direct questions regarding permit applications to Keith VanWagner(651-582-1443) of Mn/DOT's Permits section. • Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA),the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S.Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification(NAC)where the establishment of • the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at(651) 582-1293. As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to: Development Reviews Coordinator Mn/DOT-Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2)copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. • If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 582- 1378. • Sincerely, 1 Atv; Brigid Gombo Senior Transportation Planner Copy: Jeff Hause/River Valley Rentals Stevens Engineers Wayne Sandberg/Washington County Joe Lux/Washington County Scott Richards/OPH City Planner • • 1+ 41-1-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I / 1 —...1./ n, I I-- :: / IITT11 !, % ,, I"" I Z• ggg „ 1 ti's ,— • II 1 J �E - j `fI 1 sO I -I I I I /� I C f- }�I X.21 • _C " , rlI L W a `Li I j 6L ____ It \ 0" N. I I I I I I '2 f I I I I I 1.1 I II - I 0.a_ TRAIL. - =., 11./11n..�■ d- , ' _ •i 14.0 THRU/RI A i S ■111111111011•1111■ jA AMI1111•111111111111111im l•! 14,0' THUR 15 4-12,0' THRU - - Noma aaaaFlailil6 12.0' THRU_► *14.0' THRU MN=1/1111111/111111•111111, ! 14.0' THRU/RT. ° - -- 0 ----_ Il ~ ---�THRU `Q P-- ~ 14 0' THR = - - =a �` 1 I xuo . \ '10. . 1 . xx x• Z x o c IM o c � I � I � I xx I CO I – • 1 I 30'R 1 C \ O 1 ^; 44 '•‘c" , ,s. , IP , . lel! t O I 16.0' - * 16.0' I -. I • OSGOOD AVE.N. I a Oil I I4r �Pq � L X.XXXA/452P/XX.XXXADT , �``` 4—X.XXXA/482P/XX,XXXADT III -' ,t1}: ' I%ti /..X.XXXA/37P/XX.XXXAOT I 'a `\ an II o� oo II WI ,n . 1 try _ _� ,�; ° I, �i i ��I.�;, 4.1 {'r I xo Z . � oT p ill, 6 ? r 1 fOm N i, �1 I 1. p„ D d If, III 'x' A 1 x itI I�' 5 xn 'e o (n �I I� II1 i I .I I -Ti I H -� x I`� X 0 g _am , _ 1 • \ G\ 41 m 1 , .S , I , �x llp . f _x i. •- d - .'R ---`7 I s? II I �/ �A . • 16. ti P d , , , I _ / ��o • / / a/ t I I , 1, , ,, , ), i ,` I r. - s' I ti:„1,I. 1 =xp / / / •P 1 1 I I• X / // /; , I j' I I 1 , , / / I I I V -.O / // / I CI / / r/ 4 I 0 // 7.; .I I I 1 D < % %/i! i I 11'• { I I I i,----,Z lei i -----\... I' I I I j j \'' \ �;/ 111111i/it / // /Il I 211 • U ti i l /,ii /i _..._ r I I i 'c I !II 1 III 01 � i I • 111 1 /j) Tk-y 0.,t.R / I / .. ' 4' iill ] F I i t oNESO). t ZO Minnesota Department of Transportation ��-��• �-, (--, r—* nl r,ip 11.0, P, Metropolitan Division ' '1 Waters Edge A or-son 1500 West County Road B2 �� 7 ' r • Roseville, MN 55113 May 13, 2004 Mr. Eric Johnson City Administrator, Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082-3007 Dear Eric: Subject: Municipal Consent Process During a conversation at another meeting the other day,Mayor Beaudet requested clarification regarding the Municipal Consent Process for the proposed St. Croix River Crossing. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 161 was recently revised to clarify ambiguity in the previous statuatory language. • In August 1995 Municipal consent was granted by the City of Oak Park Heights for the previous project proposal. This project design was ultimately stopped in December 1996 after a negative Section 7A determination was made by the Department of the Interior. Since that time, we have initiated the project development process for a new river crossing by going back to the scoping process and are now in the environmental analysis phase. After the preferred alternative has been selected and a Final EIS has been approved, if the proposed design requires 1) acquisition of additional right-of-way or 2) change of access to the local system or 3) increase in the capacity of the roadway, then the municipal consent process as described in M.S. Statute 161,will need to be started. I anticipate that all three conditions will be met and municipal consent will be required from Oak Park Heights and Stillwater, as this project continues to move through the project development process. I have attached a process flow chart for the Municipal consent process for your information. On a related issue, Mr. Don Wisniewski has requested clarification as to whether or not consolidation of property near their Government Center into the City of Stillwater would have any negative impact on Oak Park Heights Municipal Consent authority. The treatment of access at this location is a separate issue, and we don't see that it will have • An equal opportunity employer Mr. Eric Johnson May 13, 2004 • Page Two any bearing on Oak Park Heights authority regarding the municipal consent process for River Crossing Project. I will be sending Don a letter on this and I will also provide a copy to you in advance of your May 25 joint meeting with the Washington County Commissioner. A copy of this letter is also being sent to Don Wisniewski for informational purposes. Sincerely, Ri. Arnebeck East Metro Area Manager Cc: Don Wisniewski, Commissioner of Washington County Larry Hanson, City Administrator of Stillwater • S Municipal Consent Law fin ik Minnesota Statues 161.162 to 161.167 IN,TIP4,041F1 Process Diagram OF January 23,2003 Mn/DOT submits final layout and project report to city Within 15 days of receiving final layout,city schedules public hearing •hearing must be conducted within 60 days of receiving final layout. •city will provide at least 30 day notice of public hearing City approves Yes Within 90 days ay final layout or of hearing' ' . takes no action? No(i.e.,city disapproves) V Project No Mn/DOT • development decides to Prepare final stops proceed? construction plans Yes Refer final layout to an Appeal Board. City See Sections No Yes 161.164- 161-167 A requested for more information changes on the appeal made? process. Send final construction Changes in final No plan to city at least 45 construction plan days before letting for access,capacity, information r/w? Yes 0.1 Let project Resubmit changed portion of layout to city for approval - end http://www.dot.state.mn.us/tecsup/xyz/plu/hpdp/book3/2f/local/muni/process.pdf LAW OFFICES OF Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff& Vierling, P.L.L.P. • 1835 Northwestern Avenue James F.I ammers Stillwater,MVlinnesota 55082 Lyle J.Eckberg Robert G.Briggs *. (1916-2003) Mark J.Vierling•+ (651) 439-2878 Paul A.Wolff D. Thomas Weidner+ FAX(651) 439-2923 ( ) Susan D.Olson+ 1944.1996 David K.Snyder Writer's direct dial number. - Timoth y M Kelle y (651) 351-2118 *Qualified Neutral Arbitrator Sean P.Stokes *Certified Real Estate Specialist Baiers C Heeren +Qualified Neutral Mediator Laura L.Domagala May 25, 2004 Joshua D.Christensen Mr. Rick Arnebeck East Metro Area Manager Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge Co [� 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Re: City of Oak Park Heights • Minnesota Department of Transportation Traffic Control Signal Agreement No. 675568 Dear Mr. Amebeck: Your correspondence of May 13,2004 as directed to Mr. Eric Johnson has been provided to our offices. The City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights was specifically inquiring on the consent process whether or not MnDOT regarded the current bridge Highway 36 reconstruction proposal as being related to projects/process initiated before May 25, 2001. As you may know, the state legislature altered the municipal consent process by legislation in 2001 that put in place a new process for municipal consent. The City's question is whether or not the Department of Transportation regards the current project for Highway 36 and the bridge as being within a project that is initiated before or after May 25, 2001. If you could refer this issue to the proper authorities within the Department of Transportation and - ••nd accordingly, it would be appreciated. • Yours v- ly, M. , J. Vierling MJV/sdb cc: Eric Johnson, City Administrator, City of Oak Park Heights I to Minnesota Department of Transportation 5 ° oE P Metropolitan Division TR Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 April 6,2004 Eric Johnson 14168 Oak Park Blvd.N. PO Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Dear Mr.Johnson: In September 2003,we assembled the Technical Advisory Group(TAG)made up of representatives from Oak Park Heights, Stillwater,Washington County,and the Greater Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce, to further study Concept F.The Technical Advisory Group met from last October through February of this year.During that time,a number of buttonhook interchange design iterations were developed,analyzed and discussed.At that time,the Business Owners Group was formed and their issues and concerns were brought forward. I would like to thank you for your involvement in this Technical Advisory Group and the refinement process,as we now consider that the TAG's work has been completed.We will be compiling a Summary Report of the TAG's work indicating what was considered during the refinement of Concept F.This refined design and remaining issues will be studied in the environmental impact process for this project. Throughout the next stage of this project,we will continue to work with Oak Park Heights, Stillwater, Washington County and the Greater Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce to further evaluate the impacts of this buttonhook design to assist in the selection of a"preferred"alternative. The Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)phase is expected to take until the fall of 2004,after which a Record of Decision is anticipated.It is after this date that the project's design(layout)and project report (EIS)would be submitted to both Cities with a request for municipal consent under current Minnesota Statute. As we move forward with the project development of the St.Croix River Crossing project,we will continue to include the concerns and issues associated with Oak Park Heights,Stillwater,Washington County and the Business Owners Group.I intend to provide monthly council updates throughout this next phase.We also have a project website that the most current information can be obtained from.The site is found at: hp o J//www.dot. umuslmetro/pmjeots/sturoix/ Thank you for your involvement in the TH 36 TAG's effort and the continued project development for the new St.Croix River Crossing. Sincerely, La_ Rick Arnebeck Metro East Area Manager • An equal opportunity employer • City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park BIvd N.•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 March 15t,2004 Mr.Todd Clarkowski MNDOT-Metropolitan Division 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE:Meeting w/City Council. Dear Mr.Clarkowski, In response to your recent letter(3/11/04)requesting a workshop/meeting with the City Council-the City has the following concerns: 1. If MnDOT feels the TAG process cannot reach a consensus decision then the City needs MnDOT to formally conclude that process.The City has no desire to circumvent that process(TAG)which MnDOT asked us to initially support. 2. If indeed the TAG process is complete/finished no interactive meeting should proceed until full narratives and plans are presented to the City Council and its staff from MnDOT.Additionally,a • clear and concise statement of objectives MnDOT is seeking from the City Council shall be provided.Lastly,the City must have adequate time to digest and consider such material both as individuals and as a Council before a response is provided back to MnDOT for any particular plan. 3. This process will unfortunately involve months.Planning,engineering,finance,legal will all need adequate time and research data to review and analyze these various items. Accordingly,the City is not yet prepared to meet with MnDOT if the intention is to ask the City to make any conclusions on refinement. The Council and staff may be willing to meet with MnDOT for an"information session"only,where some of the above points could be presented.Again,only as an"informational" .MnDOT may also be considering a joint meeting/presentation with Stillwater and/or Washington County to which our community may also be amenable. We understand that this response may not align with your timetable,however the City must proceed within its own decision making process. incerely, ric Johnso City A. •• ator • Cc:City Council Members eiESOT9 Minnesota Department of Transportation Fro,oFTftp.." Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 10 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 March 11, 2004 Eric Johnson Oak Park Heights City Administrator Subject: St. Croix River Crossing Project: Request for Council Workshop Related to Refined Concept"F" As you are aware, Oak Park Heights, Stillwater, Washington County, and Mn/DOT were partners in the development and completion of the TH 36 Partnership Study. Past resolutions from the communities and board indicated support of refining Concept"F" from that study. So last fall, Mn/DOT assembled a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) made up of representatives from the same partners and also included representatives from the Greater Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce. The TAG refined Concept"F"to a point now but there are still remaining issues. • We are requesting a council workshop with OPH so that the refined Concept "F"can be presented, along with the remaining issues, and Mn/DOT `s plan for not only including this refined Concept "F"in the Supplemental Draft EIS but also defining the steps we'll be taking to address the remaining issues. The project's schedule indicates releasing the Final Scoping Decision Document to the public on March 29th. The Final Scoping Decision Document contains descriptions of which alternatives (No-Build, B-1, C, D, and E)Mn/DOT &Wis/DOT will be studying further in the Supplemental Draft EIS. The refined Concept"F"is presently included in each of the build alternative's descriptions. As you've indicated, the OPH council has a workshop planned on March 23rd. I am requesting that an agenda item be included on that workshop agenda for the St. Croix River Crossing project's refined Concept"F". Please let me know if this will work out for you and your community. Thank you. Todd Clarkowski y----'1 ..7 ,/ ..-13,-Y____ -e ...7.-- - Ill, Mn/DOT Area Engineer An equal opportunity employer Cc: Rick Arnebeck Alana Getty City of Oak Park Heights 40. ";` 14168 Oak Park Blvd N..Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•(651)439-4439•Fax 439-0574 December 101,2003 Mr.Todd Clarkowski Minnesota Department of Transportation 1500 West County Road B2, MN 050 Roseville,MN 55113 RE:City of Oak Park Heights'Comments regarding the 2003 Amended Scoping Document and the Amended Draft Scoping Decision Document. Mr.Clarkowski, For either Bridge development options;the"No-Build"and Alternative"A" roadway improvements would not be made to Hwy 36 or its frontage roads from Highway 5 to Highway 95.This is unacceptable to our City. The south frontage road is the existing 1932 highway and is well beyond its useful life.If the"No-Build"or Alternative"A"is the selected project,the City Council respectfully requests that the condition of the fronta•e roads and that the intersections within this corridor be upgraded pursuant to a plan to be approved by b ak Park Heigh s and Still,ater. 410 David Beaudet Mayor City of Oak Park Heights. A Eric Johns• City A•i'mi . .tor Cc: City Council Members TREE CITY U.S.A. *************** -IND. XMT JOURNAL- **************** DATE DEC-10-2003 ***** TIME 15:35 ******** 00 DATE/TIME = DEC-10-2003 15:31 JOURNAL No. = 98 COMM.RESULT = OK PAGES) = 002/002 DURATION = 00:00'33 FILE No. = 199 MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION 4 DESTINATION = 5821308 RECEIVED ID = RESOLUTION = STD -CITY OF OPH - ************************************ -651 439 0574 - ***** - - ********* 410 • ; 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 3`I,2003 Mr.Rick Arnebeck,Regional Manager MnDOT Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE:Hwy 36 Resolution -(utility relocation,frontage road,etc.) Mr.Arnebeck, Enclosed you will find a resolution clarifying the City's position on the necessity of the"Project"providing the funding for the relocation of the City's utilities and frontage roads;and that Hwy 36 TAC incorporate these concerns into the current and ongoing partnership study. I ; ovide a co• of I- resolution to Todd Clarkowski and Beth Bartz. Sincerely, ric Johnson City Al ' or Cc:City Council Members Weekly Notes. • RESOLUTION NO. 03-10-54 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY,MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION REVIEWING TRUNK HIGHWAY 36 RIGHT-OF-WAY UTILITIES AND FRONTAGE ROAD PROPOSED TURNBACK WHEREAS,the City of Oak Park Heights has been continually reviewing proposed transportation plans from the Minnesota D ep artment of Transportation ortation outlining options relative to improvements within Trunk Highway 36; and, WHEREAS,the City passed Resolution 03-05-30 on the 13th day of May,2003 identifying Concept F as advocated by the Department of Transportation with regard to reconstruction of Highway 36; and, WHEREAS,the Minnesota Department of Transportation is aware that the City of Oak Park Heights has significant utilities located within the existing Highway 36 right-of-way; and, WHEREAS,the Minnesota Department of Transportation has in past years advocated a tumback of frontage roads serving Trunk Highway 36 to the adjoining municipalities as part of any potential construction project; and, WHEREAS,there are significant issues impacting the residents and City of Oak Park Heights relative to both utility relocation and frontage road tumback, which are essentially intermingled with the trunk highway improvement development plans of the Minnesota Department of Transportation; and, WHEREAS,it would be essential to any resolution of the Trunk Highway 36 improvement plans of the Minnesota Department of Transportation to resolve and confirm agreements with regard to paying for the expense of utility relocation within Trunk Highway 36 and agreements relative to the expense and improvement of frontage roads and turnback of them to municipal units; and, WHEREAS,the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights believes it is important to communicate to the Minnesota Department of Transportation that these issues of utility relocation and trunk highway frontage road turnback must be resolved as part of any plan to reconstruct Trunk Highway 36; and, 410 WHEREAS,the City of Oak Park Heights has assigned individuals working in committee and in partnership with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to review designs and improvements to Trunk Highway 36; and, WHEREAS,the relocation of utilities and the tumback of frontage roads will likely place a catastrophic financial burden upon the City of Oak Park Heights if those costs are not borne • by the project and additionally provides the potential for significant loss to the City's commercial business tax base; and, WHEREAS,the City of Oak Park Heights currently receives no funding through the Minnesota State Aid Fund,is experiencing significant reductions and impending elimination of local government aids and will probably experience significant reduction of local commercial tax base as a result of this proposed project if it is completed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights as follows: 1. That City Council Resolution 03-05-30, as passed by the City Council on the ty P Y 13th day of May, 2003, a true and correct copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit "A", is herewith reconfirmed. 2. That the City of Oak Park Heights will not be in the position to grant any final authorities or approvals to any plans for reconstruction or relocation of Trunk Highway 36 unless and until commitments relative to utility relocation and/or frontage road tumback and the financial elements and essential components thereof have been fully resolved. 3. That the City of Oak Park Heights recommends that the Trunk Highway 36 technical advisory committee incorporate these concerns into the refinement discussions regarding • Concept F from the Trunk Highway 36 partnership study. 4. The Minnesota Department of Transportation develop, pursue and implement alternative funding strategies in providing financial relief to the City of Oak Park Heights to absorb these anticipated costs and losses which are inevitably part of the Trunk Highway 36 improvement project. Passed by the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights •ay of October,2003. ,i_ ;i .„ 61404 ss .� David Beaudet,Mayor AP' S : ric Johnson City A• str• or 411/ • EXHIBIT "A" • b t ISOLIJTION NO. 345,-30• • ••. ' � XOA PARI HEIGHTS • , • WASBIGTON C.OTJNTY,1VIMZSOTA • - Iv • - CONCEITS AND O UoNS as ' • G cost . A gESQLUTiON Ii��fi'.TE� - PROVIDED WITHIN A TRANSPORTATION NAVIN IR PROVIDED D BY . • �SOTA DARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA.TION I • WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Fleights has been asked to review a . Trmspartation Study submit' by the Isrmacsotn Deparbxterot of Transportation, outlining several. optons with regard to potesxtial improvetaents to Tr tmk l3ighway 36;and, , i • WHEREAS,the same has not been submitted to the City fax a final layout approval process,pursua Dt to Minn.Stat§161.164;and, • WHEREAS,the Minnesota Department of Tr nsporta?ion has asked•far the City's to the several options it has laid.out in the Transportation '• review and camment2ap with regard ��y 36;and, • ' •- . Study,affecting pot�tial improvements • NC.1.3E'REAS, the City has nat.concluded its final review of the Traasportttion . Study, and xeservadions,about t:i etables,funding sources, impact upon Ile community " and potential future inapping,,Dace final selection of options and imgie vements is deeded; and, • , WHEREAS,The.City Council nonetheless wishes to pass•its indications along to 1110°' ors of its feelings with regard to the concepts provided the Minnesota Department of Transportation within the Transportation Study. . . • NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the City of Oak Park Heights has • • herewith informed the Minnesota Department of Transportation that it has in concept, approved Ct:ncept F,as contained within the transportation plan,'but specit%caiiy reserves the right to approve • or object to,any final mapping. , • •BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Coomdl for the City of Oak Park feat layout approval as to this option,pursuant to Mlnn.Stat§161.164,as it Heights does not goat • is only the concept or general detail list of Concept F that is being provided for at this time. • . • •Passed b y t h e C i t y C o u n c i l f o r p`, Hei:' ' i' 13th day of ay ' 2003. • . • a. "dBeaudet,Mayor • ATTE: - •. i. • . ,4111 , . if Eric Johnson, City Administrator atoz •