03/12/2002 - City Council Special! r
AGENDA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002
5:00 P.M.
FIRE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
I. ROLL CALL AND AGENDA ADOPTION
II. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCEDURES
III. DISCUSS NEW LANGUAGE FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
IV. DISCUSS STORM MITIGATION FUNDING OPTIONS
V. DISCUSS SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR STREET SOAPING /ENTRANCE
MONUMENTS.
VI. PRESENTATION OF 2002-2007 PARKS C.I.P. BY APrC
VII. REVIEW FINANCING OPTIONS FOR CEDAR GROVE
REDEVELOPMENT
VIII. REVIEW CIP FOR 2002 STREET CONSTRUCTION
IX. DISCUSS MINNESOTA VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY -
APPOINTMENT OF AT-LARGE COMMISSIONER AND ALTERNATE
AND UPDATE ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION
X. OTHER BUSINESS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
~, ~~.<.~ _:~ -° MEMO
- city of eagan
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMII~IISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: MARCH 4, 2002
SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/TUESDAY, MARCH 12
A Special City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, Mazch 12 at 5:00 p.m. at the Fire
Administration Building. The meeting will be taped delayed for cable broadcasting.
COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCEDURES
Recently, a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment request was submitted and recommended for
denial by the APC and, ultimately, withdrawn from Council consideration. This instance highlighted a
recurring issue with "stand alone" amendments or rezoning requests where the City Council (and APC)
has denied an amendment or rezoning because of a "lack of information" on what the ultimate
development would provide.
In the mid-1990's, the City Council established a policy whereby any Guide Plan Amendment request
that would change the property from commercial to residential, or vice-versa, had to proceed as a stand
alone application. As I recall, the purpose was to allow the Land Use question to be asked/answered
before the developer was required to expend a significant amount of money on engineering, site design,
natural resource inventory, etc. As you can imagine, pazticulazly with in-fill development, providing
the level of detail necessary for a rezoning and/or subdivision can easily result in an expense in the
$30,000-50,000 range.
It is understandable that the Council and APC desire a certain amount of detail on the finished product
before a decision is made on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or Rezoning. A policy discussion by
the City Council would be very helpful as Planning staff deals with "level of detail" issues with
potential developers considering Comp Guide Amendment and/or Rezoning requests.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To provide staff policy direction regarding the level of detail and the process for Comprehensive Plan
Amendments and/or Rezoning requests.
DISCUSS NEW LANGUAGE FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICTS
At the regular City Council meeting held on March 4, 2002, two (2) agenda items pertaining to a
Conditional Use Permit to allow accessory building(s) that exceeded 1100 square feet on residentially
zoned property were considered. Both of the requests were denied by the Advisory Planning
Commission and City Council.
Following a deliberation on each of the Conditional Use Permit applications, there was direction by the
City Council to discuss process and dimensional standards for accessory building(s) in residential
zoning districts at the March 12 work session.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To provide direction to City staff and City Attorney regazding any City code changes to the process and
dimensional standards of accessory building(s) in residential zoning districts.
DISCUSS STORM MITIGATION FUNDING OPTIONS
Now that the Storm Mitigation Improvements aze well under way addressing the Super Storm event of
July 2000, the Council needs to define the appropriate funding sources for these improvements.
Enclosed on pages ~ through ~ is a memo from Public Works Director Colbert summarizing
the costs and funding options for Council's consideration.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To provide staff direction regarding funding options for the balance of storm mitigation improvements
that were authorized following the July 2000 storm.
SCOPE OF SERVICES / STREETSCAPTING AND ENTRANCE MONUMENTS
City staff has been working with the City Council Streetscaping & Gateway Signage subcommittee
(Awada & Fields) and the consulting firm of SRF. Staff is providing this information as an update to
the full City Council. Based on discussion and direction provided by the subcommittee at the February
12, 2002, Special Council meeting, SRF has prepared a sepazate Scope of Service document for both
Beau D' Rue Streetscaping and Central Parkway. A Scope of Service for the Phase II Gateway Sign
project was also included as an alternate. An update memo that provides a summary of the Scope of
Service proposals, associated timelines, and current status of these projects is enclosed on page ~.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To provide staff with "next step" direction for Streetscaping and Gateway Signage.
PRESENTATION OF 2002-2007 PARKS C.I.P. BY APrC
The Parks and Recreation Commission has completed work on their five (5) yeaz C.I.P. (2003-2007).
The APrC will be present at the meeting at 6:30PM to discuss the five-yeaz plan, as well as
improvements proposed for 2002. The APrC has held numerous meetings and done a great deal of
work in preparation of the C.I.P. They look forward to discussing the proposed plan further.
a
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To provide direction to the APrC regarding improvement projects proposed for the remainder of 2002
and projects proposed for 2003-2007.
REVIEW FINANCING OPTIONS FOR CEDAR GROVE REDEVELOPMENT
Since the Special City Council Workshop held in late January, City staff and consultants have held
several meetings to 1) determine a revised project scope/final assessment roll for Project 800; 2) review
the Parranto Development Agreement; 3) consider cost alternatives for the Project 759R Beau D'Rue
proposed improvements; and 4) review estimated streetscaping costs and other related aesthetic
improvement costs. In addition various financing options relating to both the infrastructure
improvements and the Cedar Grove Redevelopment have been reviewed with particular emphasis on
an improvement bond sale per the City Council direction.
Enclosed on pages ~~ through ~ is a memo from Director of Administrative Services
VanOverbeke summarizing construction projects, financing options and public policy issues for City
Council consideration.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To provide staff direction regarding the scope and financing of street and streetscaping improvements
for the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area.
REVIEW CIP FOR 2002 STREET CONSTRUCTION
Mayor Awada has asked that this item be placed on the agenda to review the street projects that are scheduled
under the current CIP for construction in 2002 and discuss the feasibility of adding any a ditional street
projects, such as the Northwood Drive overpass for consideration. Enclosed on page ~ is a memo from
Public Works Director Colbert providing some options for the Council's consideration.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To provide direction to City staff regarding any modifications the City Council may desire to the 2002 street
construction CIP.
DISCUSS MINNESOTA VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY -APPOINTMENT OF AT-
LARGE COMMISSIONER AND ALTERNATE AND UPDATE ON PROPOSED
LEGISLATION
The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) membership has been working for some time to
amend the Joint Powers Agreement and Bylaws for the MVTA. It appears that all items have been
resolved except the process of appointing the at-large commissioner and alternate. The appointment
issue is whether the at-large commissioner should be appointed by all five commissioners representing
cities that are members of the MVTA, or whether the at-large commissioner should be appointed by the
commissioners from Burnsville, Eagan and Apple Valley, which is the current provision in the Joint
Powers Agreement.
3
Enclosed on pages ~ through ~ is a copy of a letter from Barbara Ross, the MVTA
attorney, which outlines this issue as well as the other proposed changes to the Joint Powers Agreement
and Bylaws.
Based upon the direction from the City Council, consideration of the Joint Powers Agreement and
Bylaws will be placed on a regular City Council Agenda for formal action.
Councilmember Tilley, the City's MVTA Commissioner, would also like to update the City Council on
information from the transit lobbyist regarding proposed legislation requiring the refurbishment of
busses rather than the purchase of new busses.
Enclosed on pages~~ through ~ is a copy of the material provided by Councilmember
Tilley as background information for this update.
OTHER BUSINESS
1s/ Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
\_
1 ~~ `~
MEMO
~~
._._ city of eag
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: MARCH 5, 2002
SUBJECT: JULY 2000 STORM MITIGTION IMPROVEMENT FUNDING
Since the July 2000 Super Storm event, the City has implemented a tremendous amount of public
infrastructure improvements and modifications to the community's storm drainage system to
mitigate the impacts of a similar rainfall event, should that unlikelihood ever occur. The attached
memo summarizes the contracts awarded to date, the costs incurred for home acquisitions and
modifications along with costs incurred to study, evaluate, design and manage these needed
improvements. It also estimates the remaining costs to complete this recovery program as
authorized by the Council
While the City was the recipient of a $5 million grant from the 2001 Legislature, it is not enough to
cover all the estimated costs referenced above. It is expected that the City will have to finance the
approximate $3.5 million of additional costs. The source of this additional funding obligation
should be designated by the Council soon so that the City can meet its current, pending and future
contractual obligations.
OPTIONS
1. Request additional Legislative Funding. Due to the current state of the economy and the
State's Budget shortfalls, it is not likely the there will be any funding from the State.
2. City Trunk Storm Sewer Fund. Our projections show the Storm Sewer Trunk fund will
have a $2.36 million balance after the City's Storm Sewer system is built out to completion.
It has been suggested in the past that such excess funds be designated for Storm System
renewal and replacement. Currently, we do not have a renewal and replacement savings
account for Storm Sewer like we do for Water and Sanitary Sewer. It is staff's
recommendation that trunk fund money not be used for the July 2000 storm system
mitigation projects.
3. City Storm Draina eg_Utility Fund This fund was originally established in 1990 to provide
ongoing funding for the operation and maintenance of the trunk storm system (pumping
costs), renewal and replacement of the overall system (pump/pipe repairs and upgrades),
expansion and modification (related street rehab upgrades) and Water Quality programs
(treatment, education, etc.). In 2001, this fund produced $838,091 of revenue based on an
annual rate of $25.04 collected in quarterly installments ($6.26/qtr) for every residential
equivalent. Attached is a graph that shows where the City of Eagan is in relation to other
communities that collect similar stormwater utility fees. For large upfront expenditures, the
City could sell Revenue Bonds and pay the debt service by increasing the Storm Drain
5
utility fees. The graph mentioned above also shows how much Eagan's stormwater utility
rates would need to increase by issuing $4 million in Revenue Bonds over either 10 or 20
years. The table below shows that, based on work performed in 2001 by Springsted, the
City's fiscal consultant, each household would pay an additional $9.84 per year if the City
were to issue $4 million in revenue bonds with a 20-year term, and alternatively, $15.40 per
year if 10-year bonds were sold:
Increase in annual fees per REF
10-yr bonds 20-yr bonds
Amt of bonds
Each $1 million $ 3.85 $ 2.46
$4 million 15.40 9.84
Staff feels issuing either 10- or 20-year Revenue Bonds for the full amount of the mitigation
costs in excess of the $5 million State grant is the most prudent option. Nevertheless, it
should be noted that increasing stormwater utility rates for capital costs could restrict the
capacity to increase rates in the future for operating costs that will continue to grow.
4. General Obligation Bonds
a) If issued with at least 20% of total costs covered by special assessments, then no
voter approval is required. However, the Council has stated that there will be no
special assessments levied as part of the Storm Mitigation program.
b) If issued without any special assessments, then special voter approval would be
required.
5. Allocations from the General Fund. Taxes could be levied annually as part of the general
levy; however, such levies would be subject to limits imposed by the State, and
consequently could force the City to make cuts in other services. The fund balance from the
General Fund could be used to fund a portion of the mitigation costs as well, although Staff
feels it is more appropriate for the fees from the Storm Drain Utility to fund these costs.
6. Any combination of these various options.
While these options have been presented at a Goals Update Council workshop on 3-27-01, no
action was taken nor direction given pending the outcome of the Legislative funding request. Now
that we have a better handle on what we will receive, and the probable cost to be incurred, it is now
appropriate for the Council to provide some Policy direction.
If any additional information would be helpful in addressing this issue, please let me know and I
will be happy to respond.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
~ Cc: Gene VanOverbeke, Director of Administrative Services
Russ Matthys, City Engineer
Enc: Storm Utility Survey
Mitigation Cost Summary Memo
~. « ~`~
MEMO
-city of eag
TO: THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: JANUARY 28, 2002
SUBJECT: JULY 200 SUPERSTORM MITIGTION CONTRACT STATUS
This memo will provide a status of the July 2000 Super Storm Mitigation improvements.
Contract Prelim. Est. Contract Award* Pymt to Date % Complete
01-12 $1,925,000 $1,550,866 $ 867,933 56%
01-13 $1,076,000 $1,124,423 $ 726,868 65%
O1-14 $1,408,000 $ 997,282 $ 147,947 15%
O1-15 $1,247,000 $ 857,190 $ 763,370 89%
Ol-09A $ 250,000 $ 405,516 $ 69,059 17%
Subtotal $5,906,000 $4,935,277 $2,575,177 52%
*FulUPartial Contract awards including any change orders
Future Cont/
Project # Description Est(E /Bi) 'd (B)
01-14 (831) Evergreen Park $ 521,000 (B)
01-15 (825) Sherwood Ct. $ 63,955 (B)
01-15 (844) Gibraltar Trail $ 249,708 (B)
02-xx (845) Rocky Lane $ 32,000 (E)
02-xx (849) Deerwood Place $ 79,000 (E)
02-xx (843) Beecher Dr. $ 18,000 (E)
02-xx (844) Forssa Way $ 7,000 (E)
02-xx (847) Fairway Hills $ 179,000 (E)
02-xx (842) Beacon Hill Rd. $ 13,000 (E~
Subtotal $1,162,633
Home Acauisition/Modification
2230 Clark Street (A)
2238 Clark Street (A)
2246 Clark Street (A)
2262 Clark Street (A)
4185 Strawberry La (A)
1348 Wilderness Run Dr. (M)
Subtotal
Purchased (P)/
In Ne~otiation(N)
$ 162,160(P)
$ 183,500(P)
$ 235,750(P)
$ 175,000(IV)
$ 248,365(P)
$ 20,000(1
$1,024,775 ($829,775P + $195,OOON)
En 'nig Bering, Testing, etc Fees
$1,652,758 (paid as of 1-28-02)
+$ 200,000 est. to complete. Subtotal $1,852,758
The total potential obligation of the City of Eagan is approx. $8.9 million with $S.1M spent to date.
S
-~ N W ~ U1 O
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O
FqG FgGgN ` 0 0 0 0 0 0
F qN ~ ~'~? c4rroht
gGq/V, Oyrbon
w, ~ as ,.~
0 yr boh
as ~.y
1S C/ty
F Mean
aoh pra/r•
/~
`aka~i/
Ch /o
c anhassen
otta9e Gr
ono
R
Os~ V%//~
St ~ ~a/na
outs p
R ark
os
e,~oUnt
~°od
buy __-.,~.:.._
pjy~o
ejoo~ nth
Brook/ ~~9ton _... ~ .. .
.Yh Csnt
~'r
qpp/o ~a
//cy . _
eUr~s~i
//s . -_
N ~
o ~
o =
~~
N _
0
N
~ O
~ ~
c~ ~
~D ~
~ ~
~. C
~ -
c~
`~• ~
a
c~
~ ~
c~ ~
~D
_z._,~,
.. 4t ~',x
MEMO
' .- city of eag
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINSTRATOR
FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: MARCH S, 2002
SUBJECT: STREETSCAPE SCOPE OF SERVICES -STATUS
As directed by the council, staff has been working with the firm of SRF Consultants Inc. to
prepare plans for the Streetscaping improvements for both the Cedar Grove Redevelopment area
(Silver Bell Access Reconfiguration & Beau D' Rue Rehab) and Central Parkway. A scope of
services was previously approved for the gateway monuments at specific locations throughout
the City and design has already begun. An addendum to the original scope at an additional cost of
$5,732 was prepared for the Gateway Sign Project providing additional sketch studies.
The Scope of services for the Cedar Grove Area is $22,350. Work has progressed to the point of
concept sketches with a construction cost estimate of $987,700 for Fountain, Fencing, Median
Entry sign, Landscaping, etc.
The Scope of services for the Central Parkway is $16,784. Work has progressed to the point of
concept sketches with a construction cost estimate of $1,006,000 for Pavers, Benches, Lighting,
Median Entry sign, Landscaping, etc.
These are on a schedule that will allow the public Hearings to be held during the 1St Council
meeting in May with a contract award in Mid July with construction beginning the 1St of August.
Sketches of the designs achieved to date will be available at the Council Workshop on March 12 for
review and discussion, if desirable.
Respectfully submitted,
9
---~;x - -
city of eagan
MEMO
TO: City Administrator Hedges
FROM: Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke
DATE: March 7, 2002
SUBJECT: Financing Options For Cedar Grove Redevelopment
As a follow up to the Special City Council meeting of January 17, 2002, staff has been
working with Ehlers & Associates, Inc. and the consulting engineers to more definitively
determine potential costs and a financing plan related primarily to the first construction
phase of the Cedar Grove redevelopment. The scope of the infrastructure improvements
has expanded significantly from the earliest plans and it is important from a public policy
perspective that it is on course with the City Council vision and expectations for the area.
Also, staff has been working to quantify the relationship between the proposed
infrastructure improvements and the resulting gain in traffic capacity as a way of providing
for a cost benefit analysis of this construction, especially as it relates to the increasing
costs. Traffic considerations resulting from potential Blue Cross/Blue Shield development
are also a factor and are being incorporated into the planning. For the purpose of
developing a financing plan for the Cedar Grove Redevelopment, the first phase is
considered to be the street infrastructure projects. The scope of these projects and
resulting funding requirements raise certain significant public policy issues for the City
Council as noted at the end of this memo.
Phase I. Infrastructure Projects Comaleted In Advance of New TIF Generated
Revenues
There are several public improvements that are either required to accommodate or desired
to promote the proposed redevelopment of the Cedar Grove area. They are as follows:
Protect 800 (Silver Bell Rd. Access Reconfi
g r
uu ation)
• Roadway Impr. $6,704,750 (Includes $3,454,050 for Property
Acquisition)
• Add'1 Impvmnt* 1,800,000* (Expanding Hwy 13 to 61anes)*
• Streetscaping 987,700 (Fountain, Fencing, Median Entry Sign,
Pavers, Landscaping, etc. for Project 759R
& 800 areas)
• Monument Sign 157,000 (Gateway Monument Signage)
Subtotal $9,649,450
*This significant additional capacity improvement is necessary to maintain an acceptable
congestion Level of Service (LOS) to accommodate the original proposed redevelopment
~~
build-out scenario. If not constructed, a "traffic budget" will have to be imposed on each
pazcel, thereby limiting development potential to a trip generation level that can be
handled by the remainder of the improvements proposed under Project 800. A summary
of this trip reduction impact analysis will be distributed at the meeting.
Proiect 759R (Beau D' Rue Street Rehab and Redevelopment Upgrade
• Street Rehab $ 448,500 (Remove, Recycle and Re-Pave Street
Surface)
• Redev. Upgrade 453,000 (Center Median and Pedestrian Trail)
• Streetscaping -0- (Included under Project 800)
• Street Lights 300,000 (Decorative Street and Pedestrian Lighting)
• Overhead Power 485,000 (Bury Existing Overhead Power Lines)
Subtotal $1,68b,500
Grand Total $11,335,950
Although the upfront total cost of these projects could be reduced by a City Council
decision to defer some project elements or to reduce the scope of the overall
improvements, the financing recommendation consists of two components as follows:
1. Sell 20 yeaz improvement bonds to finance the construction. To sell
improvement bonds requires that at least 20% of the project cost be assessed
($2,267, 190). The amount of the improvement bond sale could be reduced by a
cash transfer from the Major Street Fund. However, any significant payments
from the Major Street Fund will delay other priority projects within the City,
would necessitate a tax increase to maintain the resources to complete other
projects or require some combination of those two alternatives. Major Street Fund
pro-formal will be provided at the meeting on Tuesday.
2. Make debt service payments from:
a) Special assessment collections:
• By development agreement. Provides some flexibility as the City
is not required to prove benefit although, the developer will
typically factor the agreement into a request for TIF assistance.
• Through the assessment hearing process. Requires the City to
prove that there is an increase in market value at least as great as
the assessment.
b) Traffic mitigation fees collected from developers. May allow for
additional resources to provide for future traffic mitigation improvements.
From a developer's prospective, traffic mitigation fees may be seen as
simply doubling up with the above referenced assessment agreements.
c) Taz increment collections resulting from new development. This money
may be required primarily for phase two funding as described below.
d) Ad valorem taz levy. Will be responsible for all debt service not covered
by any other defined source and could be as high as the 80% of the debt
service that is not assessed. The potential community wide tax impact is
shown on the attachment to this memo.
e) Land sale proceeds. May more appropriately be dedicated to phase two
redevelopment costs outlined below.
f) State Grants. The City applied for but did not receive funding for the
current year. It is unlikely that any State money will be available to assist
with funding these projects as they are currently proposed.
Note•
This funding scenario for Project 800 (Access Improvements), Project 759 (Beau d' Rue)
and the Streetscaping Project does not incorporate dollars for any other redevelopment
activities such as property acquisition that is not related specifically to these three projects.
All other Cedar Grove redevelopment is contemplated to be financed independently from
these projects and will probably compete for the same tax increment revenue, if any of that
funding source is used to retire the debt.
Phase II. Cedar Grove Redeveloament Activities
The Cedar Grove redevelopment. costs primarily including land write down resulting from
land assembly, relocation and demolition related to the second phase of actual Cedar
Grove redevelopment is contemplated to be financed as follows:
1. Financed up front by the developers with "Pay As You Go" Notes to them. This
option will require some borrowing (probably internally) to carry the projects prior
to development and a resulting tax increment stream.
2. Tax Increment Bonds sold by the City with debt service paid by increment and
backed by the City's general taxing authority.
Note•
There will be competition between how the tax increment is shared or used. The City will
desire to cover its obligations and the developers will request incentives to make
development more financially feasible.
Public Policy Issues:
Do these projects as currently contemplated provide the current and future level of
improvements necessary to facilitate the City Council's vision for redevelopment? Issues
relate to both traffic flow and capacity and aesthetics perspectives.
What, if any, amount of this construction should be paid for by the Major Street Fund?
Is it acceptable to provide debt service on the improvement bonds primarily from a tax
levy? Is there enough benefit to the broader community to support this level of ad
valorem tax levy for the debt service required by this redevelopment effort?
Dire of Administrative Services
ia,
Ci OF Ea an MN
Analysis of Tax Impact for Potential Borrowing
March 8, 2002
Bond Issue Size ;11,735,000
Type of Debt G.O. Bonds
Est Tax Capacity Rates (debt ony)
Net Tax Capacity Value (Pay 2002) 52,452,658.00
Annual Levy Increase 768,000.00
Tax Rate For Debt Levy 1.464177X
1
Taxable Estimated Increase in Taxes Estimated Increase Per Add'I
T of Pro Market Value for Debt Service Onl ;1,000,000 Debt Le
100,000 ;15 1.30
125,000 ;18 1.63
Residential 150,000 ;22 1.95
Homestead 175,000 ;26 2.28
200,000 ;29 2.60
225,000 ;33 2.93
250 000 ;37 3.25
500,000 ;135 12.04
Commercial/ 750,000 ;209 18.54
Industrial 1,000,000 ;282 25.05
1,500,000 X28 38.06
2,000,000 ;575 51.07
true c~e~'~' Sev~ c~s Qa~d
St~cia~ assesSn1e a~,
'fax ~tv~.
~~~ ~ owe ~ ~~
r ~ 'o
~ ~, Y~ rl ~ 1 ~ h
~~~ Oh s
~`~ ~rViCt.
~t
Prepared by Ehlers & Associates,lnc.
bo~
90 ~,
g~ ~o
Ca ~G
~4
O
b~ a
i w.~-~T c hand e.
o~ ~Or vow! ; ~4
~{
S~~e. '1008090
13
sianoo2
`~
~~
` ~~ `.;~
MEMO
- city of eag
TO: THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTATOR
FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2002
SUBJECT: 2002 ADDITIONAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS -OPTIONS
Recently, you informed me that the Mayor was inquiring if there were any street improvement
projects that could be accelerated from our CIP for consideration of approval this construction
season. As you know, our C1P for transportation improvements is broken down into two categories:
Arterials/Collectors and Local Streets.
Except for the routine overlays under the Arterials & Collectors category, the major upgrade
projects all involve State Highways or County Roads which require the participation and/or
permitting of these agencies. Because these major transportation improvements identified in our
CIP for later years are not in either of those agencies' program for 2002, they are not able to
respond in such a short time frame. Even if we decided to proceed with the improvements using
100% local funding, the additional requirements for right of way acquisition and plan approval
would not meet a 2002 construction schedule. The one major improvement in this category under
total local control is the proposed Northwood Drive overpass over 35E. The staff is still working on
finding some outside participation to help with this major transportation improvement.
Construction in 2002 would require 100% local funding.
The 5-year CII' for transportation improvements under Local Streets has a few projects that could
be accelerated for completion in 2002.
• The recycle/rehabilitation of the streets in the Sehnazk, Harvey & Burview Acres Additions
(Chapel Lane, Random Rd, Rita Ct. and Sally Circle). These aze presently scheduled for
2003. This project has been denied as a result of a previous Public hearing.
• The upgrade of Meadowview Rd to City Standards (currently the only remaining gravel Rd
in the City). This is currently scheduled for 2004. This project has been denied as a result
of a previous Public hearing.
These are about the only improvements that I believe that could be successfully completed yet this
year. Please let me know if I should accelerate any of these or other streets that the Council may
have a specific interest in.
Respectful .submitted,
~ ~2~ G~.e
Cc: Russ Matthys, City Engineer
~~
BEST ~ FLAIV`AGAN LLP
aTTOR\El~ AT LAR
X000 L ~ Banl. P1 ;re '
6(11 ~econ~l ~~rnue youth )
'1linncapoli>. )linnesota 5~-1U°_- 1331 ~ ~oOG 8 y O
Telephone 612 339 .121 C' 4 ~ f
Facsimile u1::~39 X89-
>,x~s.bestla3+.com
~ ~~,! ~. .
r _ ~, i,
,~
,,,
,,
. ~.,,„
, ,..,~~~
,• ~~. _,
~~
>~.
',~~
~. , . .
, , , ~. ,,
.. , , ,.
'~;..
~;
~, , .~ „~
,, ,
.~.. _.
,,,.
~. ,, ~ „
~~ ~.,,~
u,.,,, ~ r,~,•~,~,
,. ,,,
i„ ,~ ~ ~i ..,a.,
~~ i i
~ :.•.
,~~.,
, . ~. ,
~; ~ , ..._
.;'~
. ~, _.~,
.~.,~..
.~~~~,
Writer's Direct Dial No.:
(612)341-9722
E-Mail Address: bross a,bestlaw.com
February 27, 2002
Mr. Tom Lawell Mr. Gregory Konat
Apple Valley City Manager Burnsville City Manager
Municipal Center City Hall
7100 West 147t1i Street 100 Civic Center Parkway
Apple Valley, MN 55124 Burnsville, MN 55337
Mr. Tom Hedges
Eagan City Manager
City Hall
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Mr. Stephen King
Savage City Manager
City Hall
6000 McColl Drive
Savage, MN 55378
Mr. Thomas Burt
Rosemount City Manager
City Hall
2875 145`h Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Re: Minnesota Valley Transit Authority
Gentlemen:
I represent Minnesota Valley Transit Authority and I am writing with respect to
amendment of the Joint Powers Agreement and Bylaws for MVTA. I have enclosed an
Amended and Restated MVTA Joint Powers Agreement and an Amended and Restated
Bylaws. The MVTA Board is requesting that each of the cities approve the Amended
and Restated Joint Powers Agreement and ratify the Amended and Restated Bylaws.
As a separate action, MVTA is requesting that each of the cities decide whether to
approve the amendment of the provision in paragraph 5 of the Joint Powers Agreement
regarding appointment of the at-large commissioner. The board members were in
agreement with respect to the changes in the Amended and Restated Joint Powers
Agreement and are requesting that be approved; but voted to have the issue regarding the
at-large commissioner decided by the cities. The issue is whether the at-large
commissioner should be appoinied by all five of the commissioners representing cities
~} ~Qo:,~~»..t I. s~~.~ 15'
February 27, 2002
Page 2
that are members of MVTA, or whether the at-large commissioner should be appointed
by the commissioners from Burnsville, Eagan and Apple Valley, which is the current
provision in the Joint Powers Agreement. If the cities unanimously approve amending
this provision, it will be included in the Amended and Restated Joint Powers Agreement
that is circulated for signature. If this provision does not receive unanimous approval, the
Amended and Restated Joint Powers Agreement will be circulated for signature with this
provision remaining unchanged from the current language in the Agreement.
I had a meeting with the city attorneys for the member cities of MVTA, and the
attorneys have approved the language of the amendments except for the issue with regard
to the at-large commissioner. A number of the amendments to the Joint Powers
Agreement and the Bylaws are housekeeping amendments. The substantive amendments
are as follows:
Joint Powers Agreement.
Board of Commissioners.
With the withdrawal of Prior Lake, the Board consists of eight (8) voting
commissioners rather than nine, and the language of paragraph 5(A) has been revised to
reflect that.
Paragraph 5(B) has been revised to provide that the alternate commissioner for
each party may or may not be an elected official as determined by each party. The Joint
Powers Agreement provides that each party shall appoint a staff member to the Technical
Work Group, and language is added to paragraph 5(A) to provide that the alternate
commissioner and the Technical Work Group member may be the same person.
Therefore, cities that want to retain the current practice of appointing a staff member as
both alternate commissioner and Technical Work Group member may do so, and cities
that do not want to appoint a staff member as alternate commissioner have the option of
appointing an elected official.
Paragraph 5(E) has been revised to require three (3) commissioners appointed by
the parties rather than four (4) to constitute a quorum of the board. This paragraph has
also been revised to provide that actions at a meeting require the affirmative vote of a
majority of the commissioners present at the meeting, which majority must conclude at
least three (3) of the commissioners appointed by the parties.
Powers and Duties of the Authority.
Paragraph 6(A) has been revised to reflect the change in funding source during
the 2001 Legislative Session by referring to the new statute, Minn. Stat. Section 16A.88.
Paragraph 7(B) has also been revised to reflect that the amount of assistance to be
provided by each party is the amount appropriated to each party plus a total amount each
Ib
February 27, 2002
Page 3
party levies, rather than the current language which reads the total amount of assistance
which each part}' receives. This reflects the change by the Legislature last year in which
funding no~v is provided to the Met Council in the amount appropriated to each city
rather than the cities levying the taxes for operating dollars or receiving the funds directly
from the Met Council. The funds will flow from the Met Council to MVTA rather than
to the cities. The cities still have the authority to levy taxes for capital projects pursuant
to Section 16A.88 which is reflected in the amended language.
Executive Director Authority.
The MVTA Board has determined that the consensus of the cities is that the
authority to hire and terminate personnel should rest with the Board rather than the
Executive Director. Pazagraph 6(E) of the Joint Powers Agreement has been revised to
specifically state that the Authority shall hire and terminate personnel and pre~~ide
compensation, insurance, and other terms and conditions that it deems necessary.
Budget.
Paragraph 7(A) has been revised to require the Executive Director to submit the
preliminary budget to the Board and also to the cities for approval within thirty (30) days
of the date of submittal. This provides for the working budget to be submitted to the
cities at the same time that it is submitted to the Board for approval so that the cities have
time to make comments and yet the budgeting process for Minnesota Valley will not be
delayed. The language has also been revised to provide that the budget shall be deemed
approved by a party that fails to approve or disapprove the budget within the thirty (30)
day period.
Insurance.
Paragraph 8 has been revised to insert more specific language with regard to
obtaining liability insurance for the Authority. The language provides that the Authority
is required to provide all parties with copies of the liability insurance coverage
documents, and in the event the insurance is cancelled or otherwise becomes unavailable
the Authority shall purchase similar liability insurance coverage from another entity. It
also provides the Authority shall purchase insurance in addition to liability insurance in
such amounts and on such terms as the Authority shall determine.
Duration of Agreement.
Paragraph 9 was amended to provide that a party that is withdrawing shall provide
notice no later than February 15~' of the year at the end of which such withdrawal is to be
effective rather than January 10`".
i~
February 27, 2002
Page 4
Distribution of Assets.
This section has been changed to reflect that a party who is withdrawing shall not
be reimbursed, except that ownership of a capital asset located within the city limits of
the withdrawing party that was funded solely by funds levied by the withdrawing party
shall be transferred to said party by the Authority. The language has further been revised
to provide in the event of termination of the Agreement by all parties, the assets will be
distributed only after payment of debts and obligations required by terms of state statutes,
federal statutes, or contracts with the Metropolitan Council or federal agencies. This
provision is to recognize the fact that the funding received from the Met Council and the
Federal Government requires that transferred assets remain in regional use and would not
be eligible to be distributed to the cities for anon-transit use.
B laws.
Board of Commissioners.
The language of the Bylaws has been changed to reflect eight (8) commissioners
and the limit on the term of the at-large commissioner.
Voting.
Section 6 of Article V (formerly (IV) has been revised to reflect the fact that
voting now requires a majority of the commissioners, which must include at least three
(3) commissioners appointed by a party.
Notice of Meetings.
Article V (previously IV) has been revised to change sections 4 and 5 to state that
notice of meetings shall be provided pursuant to applicable statutes. The language in
section IV that was inconsistent with the Open Meeting Law has been deleted. Language
was also added to Section IV that the Executive Director could call a special meeting in
addition to the Chair and any two commissioners to reflect the practice of MVTA.
Signatures.
Article VII (formerly VI) and Article VIII (formerly VII) regarding Officers and
Executive Director have been revised to provide that both the Chair and the Executive
Director shall sign contracts, agreements, deeds, and other documents and instruments. It
has been the practice to obtain two signatures on such documents, and the Bylaws are
being amended to be consistent with the practice.
f8
February 27, 2002
Page 5
Disbursement of Funds.
Article X (formerly IX) has been revised to remove Section 2 as it authorized the
payment upon written consent of Board members, and this could be construed as a
violation of the Open Meeting Law.
Official Newspaper.
There is no provision in the current Bylaws regarding an official newspaper, and
the practice has been to designate the official newspaper from all of the cities. The city
attorneys indicated that they had no objection to one official newspaper for MVTA in
order to reduce the cost of publication. It was the consensus that the newspaper for the
City of Burnsville should be designated as the official newspaper of MVTA and Article
X of the Bylaws has been added.
If you have any questions or need any further information, please call me.
Sincerely,
BMR/dk
cc: Beverley Miller
Barbara M. Ross
183275/010252-950712
/q
Minnesota Valley Transit Authority ~~
100 East Highway 13 • Burnsville, MN 55337
Ph. (952) 882-7500 • Fax (952) 882-7600 • E-mail: mvta@mvta.com
TO: STA Members
cc: Messerli & Kramer
FROM: Tom Brennan, Chair, MVTA Board ~, ~,
RE: STA's Approved Legislative Agenda
DATE: February 28, 2002
On behalf of the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) Board of Directors we would like
the members of the Suburban Transit Association (STA) to reconsider the Legislative Agenda
adopted earlier this year. In the document that was submitted to the MVTA Board, Minnesota
Valley Transit believed that we would have sufficient bonding funds (nearly $11 million) to
cover our replacement bus needs.
At some point, based on the Regional Transit Capital Bonding Plan being limited to$50 million,
our available funding was cut in half. The MVTA is now being asked to push the useful life of
12-year-old buses out. one more yeaz (to 2003) and then we are being told we will receive funds
to replace only half of these buses with the remainder being refurbished. This is not satisfactory.
We have communicated this concern to the Metropolitan Council Transportation Committee (see
attached letter) as we are seeking to understand the priorities established by the Region regarding
transit. We believe maintenance of the existing system must have a high priority as the bus
system is the backbone of our existing service. However, at the same time, we are seeing
numerous new projects that are diverting funds away from the core service provided by transit
agencies across the Twin Cities. Further, no federal funds were designated for replacement
vehicles and therefore our options are limited.
As you all know, we are being asked to be supportive of the Metropolitan Council and the
regional priorities. And, we want to operate in a collegial manner. However, we have to
consider our own needs as well. We have already been forced to cut service by more than $1.2
million in 2002 and do not want to have to subject our customers to further service reductions
due to aging fleet issues.
Because the current proposal to the Legislature does not match with our Legislative Agenda, the
MVTA respectfully requests that STA meet to discuss this issue and determine potential
solutions. The MVTA would be happy to host such a meeting, if appropriate. Thank you for
your consideration.
Public transportation for Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Prior Lake, Rosemount, and Savage
ao
Minnesota Valley Transit Authority #~
100 East Highway 13 • Burnsville, MN 55337
Ph. (952) 882-7500 • Fax (952) 882-7600 • E-mail: mvta@mvta.com
February 28, 2002
Ms. Mary Hill Smith
Chair, Transportation Committee
Metropolitan Council
230 East Fifth St.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Dear Ms. Smith:
The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) would like your assistance in obtaining
priority for replacement buses in the Regional Transit Capital Bonding Plan.
Based on the most recent plan in which the region is seeking $50 million in regional bonding, the
MVTA portion was reduced from nearly $11 million to just over $5 million. We are being asked
to push the useful life of 12-year-old buses out one more year (to 2003) and then will receive
funds to replace only half of these buses with the remainder being refurbished. This is not
satisfactory and here are some statistics that support our opinion.
• There is no transit agency in a northern climate that currently operates buses for 13-19
years. Further, among similar-sized transit agencies, the MVTA is operating one of the
oldest fleets in the country.
• If the buses were to be refurbished, the allocation would not cover the costs and a top
priority would have to be installing lifts in buses not designed for lift-equipped service (to
meet the Region's ADA compliance plan).
• Metro Transit operates no vehicles older than 12 years of age (the useful life of these
buses).
• Experts in the industry indicate repeated problems with refurbishing buses of this age as
new issues repeatedly arise. Once rust and corrosion begin to affect the frame of the bus,
a spot can be addressed but then it moves to another location and the repairs are constant,
time-consuming (a bus is likely to be out of service for four weeks or more) and costly.
• The reason for the significance of the dollar figure this year is that these were the first
buses obtained by the MVTA and have only now have reached the age for replacement.
It is important to understand this request is to maintain the existing service and not to
meet the growing need for additional vehicles.
• MVTA customers are already complaining about the age and condition of the fleet and
continued use of old buses will increase complaints and eventually impact ridership,
Public transportation for Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Prior Lake, Rosemount, and Savage
a~
which has grown annually for the 11 years the MVTA has operated service (see attached
news release).
We are seeking to understand the priorities established by the Metropolitan Region regarding
transit. We believe maintenance of the existing system must have a high priority as the bus
system is the backbone of our existing service. However, at the same time, we are seeing
numerous new projects that are diverting funds away from the core service provided by transit
agencies across the Twin Cities. Further, no federal funds were designated for replacement
vehicles and therefore our options are limited.
The MVTA wants to be supportive of the Metropolitan Council and the regional priorities.
However, we have to consider our own needs as well. We have already been forced to cut
service by more than $1.2 million in 2002 and do not want to have to subject our customers to
further service reductions due to aging fleet issues.
We look forward to your support in seeking a solution to this critical situation.
Sincerely,
~~~~
Thomas M. Brennan
Chair
c: Met Council Transportation Committee
Rep. Dan McElroy
Rep. Tim Wilkin
Mr. Ted Mondale
Mr. Lee Sheehy
Opt-out Transit Agencies
Messerli & Kramer
MVTA Board
~4d`
100 East Highway 13
Burnsville, MN 5337
News Release FOR IivLtifEDI.~TE RELEASE
To: Local Editors Contact: Robin Selvia, 9~2-882-704
2001 MVTA Ridership Up 8.7 Percent from 2000
Burnsville, MN -- February 27, 2002 -- The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) expe-
rienced its 1 lth straight year of ridership increases, with a tota12001 ridership of 1,92~,70~, up 8.7
percent from 2001. "This is extremely significant," stated Executive Director Beverley Miller,
"because there was a 25 cent fare increase on July 1 and we cut several local service routes in early
December due to budgetary constraints."
The MVTA's average weekday boardings increased to 7,>j2, up 8.6 percent tiom 2000. This
figure includes an average of 6,352 average daily boardings on express buses and 1,200 average daily
boardings on local routes. Express bus ridership was up 9.8 percent from 2000.
Tutal average daily boardings (including weekends) increased to 3,48 a nine percent increase
from 2000. The MVTA has experienced si;niticant increases in Sunday riders!::Y. up 29.E percent
over 2000. However, with the elimination of weekend service in Apple Valley, this number is expect-
ed to slip in 2002.
Tom Brennan, Chair of the MVTA Board and ~favur of Sava,e indicated, "the ~1VTA has seen
ridership increase from the Burnsville Transit Station with the opening of the nett level to the parkin`
deck." He noted that parking capacity is currently about 1,400 and "on a recent day, there were some
-more-
)ViVTA News Release, page 2 of 2
189 cars parked on the top level of the deck." Ruth Grendahl, chair of MVT.~'s ~[arketing Committee
and Apple Valley Councilmember commented, "Ridership has also increased from the Apple Valley
Transit Station, where the MVTA has a partnership with Carmike Cinema to share parkin` (~IVT.-~ rid-
ers park during the day, Carmike patrons park on evenings and weekends)." According to ?Miller,
growth is also expected in Eagan later this year, when the Eagan Transit Station re-opens with atwo-
level parking deck and transit station. The retail center at the site (I-3~EiYankee Doodle & Pilot Knob
Roads) is already open.
Information about MVTA routes and services is available on the ~R%T.a web site at
www.mvta.com or by calling the MVTA offices at 952/882-7500. The ivIVTA is the public transporta-
tion provider for the cities of Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Rosemount and Savage.
###
a4