Loading...
Highway 25 Coalition Agenda Packet 04-26-2018Highway 25 Coalition Agenda Thursday, April 26, 2018 7:30 AM North Mississippi Room, Monticello City Hall 1. Call to order 2. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 3. Consideration of approval of meeting minutes from meeting held February 22, 2018 4. Treasurers Report 5. Highway 25 Area Study - Initial Evaluation of River Crossing Options 6. Transportation and related Economic Development or Land Use Updates A. Becker B. Becker Township C. Big Lake D. Big Lake Township (Fiscal Agent) E. Monticello F. Sherburne County G. Wright County 7. I94 Coalition Update 8. Other Updates 9. Adjourn Highway 25 Coalition Meeting Minutes — February 22, 2018 7:30 AM Big Lake City Hall — Council Chambers Members Present - Sherburne County —Tim Dolan, Dan Weber, and Andrew Witter; City of Becker — Tracy Bertram, Greg Pruszinske, and Rick Hendrickson; City of Big Lake — Raeanne Danielowski, Clay Wilfahrt, Layne Otteson, Michael Healy, and Hannah Klimmek; City of Monticello — Brian Stumpf, Jeff O'Neill, and Jennifer Schreiber; and Wright County — Virgil Hawkins Others Present: Claudia Dumont, MnDOT; Ron Faber, University of Minnesota — Sand Plain Research Farm, and Kevin Jullie, SRF 1. Call to order. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 a.m. 2. Consideration of approval of meeting minutes from meeting January 25, 2018. Motion by Tim Dolan, seconded by Tracy Bertram, to approve the meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Review Administrative Support This will be discussed within a small work group. 4. Treasurer's Report Not available. 5. Highway 25 Coalition Website/Communications The group discussed development of an independent Highway 25 Coalition website. Currently, the Coalition has a page on Monticello's website. There was consensus that Monticello will lead the effort to develop a website for the coalition. 6. Rail Impact Study Update Dan Weber gave an update on the rail impact study. The next meeting is scheduled for March 5. Updates of the meetings will be provided to the Highway 25 Coalition. Andrew Witter noted that the group has been gathering data on working on an economic impact analysis. 7. Highway 25 Corridor Study The group discussed the open house held on February 13. Overall there was positive feedback. Clay Wilfahrt noted that he compiled information from residents in Big Lake through the use of social media. The information demonstrated bridge site preferences. Conversation ensued regarding the options. Many agreed that more information in regard to traffic counts, economic impact, safety, environmental impacts, etc. need to be determined before the `best' site can be considered. Jeff O'Neill proposed that the group follow a common approach for communicating information. Some entities communicate more directly with their constituents than others. Andrew Witter noted the communication plan developed by SRF. This should be reviewed. The timeline of the Highway 25 study is a concern. Andrew Witter commented that it is difficult to develop a timeline of actual years. A more realistic effort would be short term versus long term projects. The river crossing in one aspect of the study. Raeanne Danielowski responded that, although there are other aspects of the study, the congestion and a new river crossing is an issue that needs to be addressed. 8. Transportation and related Economic Development or Land Use Updates • Becker — None. • Becker Township — None. • Big Lake — Looking at further residential growth and commercial/industrial development. • Big Lake Township — None. • Monticello — City is in process of some redevelopment planning. There is a residential project in the works which spans over next three years. • Sherburne County — Dan Weber stated that they have seen $1 million in new construction county wide. This is the first time since the recession. Andrew Witter noted than an application was submitted to the Corridors of Commerce for County Rd 11 and Hwy 10 intersection. The county has scheduled two open houses on their long term transportation plan — March 12 (Zimmerman) and March 15 (Becker). • Wright County — Virgil Hawkins noted that Wright County is also working on their long range transportation plan and will be hosting open houses in late spring. The I-94 Coalition submitted an application to the Corridors of Commerce to extend from County Rd 241 in St. Michael to Albertville. 9. I-94 Update Claudia Dumont noted that the Corridors of Commerce funds will be awarded in April. The funds available are $200 million (metro) and $200 million (Greater MN). 10. Adjourn. There being no further discussion, there was a motion by Tim Dolan, seconded by Brian Stumpf, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The next meeting will be March 29 in Monticello. Town of Big Lake Interim Financial Report By Account Number (YTD) 4/24/2018 4/30/2018 801 HWY 25 CORRIDOR TRANSP STUDY Receipts: Total Revenues Other Financing Sources: Capital Contributions Total Acct 397 Total Other Financing Sources Disbursements: Traffic Engineering Expenditures Total Acct 426 Total Disbursements Other Financing Uses: Total Other Financing Uses Beginning Cash Balance Total Receipts and Other Financing Sources Total Disbursements and Other Financing Uses Cash Balance as of 04/30/2018 Unposted SRF invoice 10276.00-11 Unposted SRF invoice 10276.00-12 Cash Balance as of 4/30/2o18 Report Version: 12/18/2015 Page 1 of 1 Budget 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Actual 0.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 27,941.77 27,941.77 27,941.77 0.00 121,219.43 150,000.00 27,941.77 243,277.66 -4,285-07 -21274.04 236,718.55 Variance 0.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 (27,941.77) (27,941.77) (27,941.77) 0.00 TH 25 AREA STUDY SRF April 26, 2018 Good Morning! Josh Maus SRF Consulting Group, Inc. jmaus@srfconsultin.g.com 763.249.6737 SRF 3 Agenda • Review of the River Crossing Corridor Options • Public Open House - Summary of Comments Received • River Crossing Options - Initial Screening • Study Team Recommendations for Detailed Evaluation • Coalition Discussion/Recommendation • Next Steps/Questions SRF 4 River Crossing Options • Five corridors were originally identified (Option A — E) - Option B (has two sub options) • Widen TH 25 and CSAH 11 • One-way pair through Monticello (TH 25 and Cedar Street) SRF k" Open House — Comments Summary • 120 comments received - 66 with a Big Lake address - 31 with a Monticello address - 8 with a Becker address - 15 Others (outside study area or unknown address) • Ranking of options was included in survey - Results fairly consistent between communities • 16 comments identified a crossing east or west of the study area as preferred (CSAR 19 or Sherco) - These responses typically voted for Option A or E SRF w A nCC Mam Public Open House Ranking Summary (All Comments) 70 60 50 v 40 Z 30 20 10 0 Option A (Average 2.3) Option B (Average 3.5) CI ?TH25 COALITION nil I Option C (Average 3.7) C1 2 3 4 ■5 Option D (Average 3.3) Option E (Average 3.1) Ranking 5cc 35 25 v 0 U 0 20 15 10 9 0 149000(0 TH 25 COALITION 11 -Iii Option A (Average 2.3) :M Public Open House Ranking Summary (Big Lake Only) 11111 Option B (Average 3.6) milli Option C (Average 3.7) ■1 ■2 ■3 f.4 ■5 Option D (Average 3.2) 11111 Option E (Average 3.1) .1. w Ll ZNU.—U 0 9iwq* Public Open House Ranking Summary (Monticello Only) 20 1s 16 14 12 v 0 U 0 10 v n Z S 6 4 2 0 TH 25 COALITION Option A (Average 2.1) Option B (Average 3.4) 01 Option C (Average 3.7) 01 02 ■3 4 05 Option D (Average 3.4) 11111 Option E (Average 2.7) v p 2.5 u O v E 2 7 Z 1.5 1 0.5 0 Option A (Average 2.4) 0 0 0 0 (04-01 TH 25 COALITION 17, Public Open House Ranking Summary (Becker Only Option B (Average 4.2) Option C (Average 4.2) ■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 F Option D (Average 3.7) Option E (Average 3.5) • • Ra n ki nn ScnrPq - ❑ Public Open House Ranking Summary (Other) s 6 5 0 v 0 0 4 v n E Z 3 2 1 III I lip W. 0 Option A (Average 2.4) Option B (Average 3.2) TH 25 COALITION 111,1 Option C (Average 3.5) ■1 X12 3 4 05 11 1 Option D (Average 3.4) 4.� Option E (Average 3.5) w A nCC Mam Public Open House Ranking Summary (All Comments) 70 60 50 v 40 Z 30 20 10 0 Option A (Average 2.3) Option B (Average 3.5) CI ?TH25 COALITION nil I Option C (Average 3.7) C1 2 3 4 ■5 Option D (Average 3.3) Option E (Average 3.1) ,2 Open House — Comments Summary • Option A received the most 1St place votes (63) • Option B and C received the least 1St place votes (11 combined) • Option D and E received 79, 1 St and 2nd place votes - However, many of the written comments voiced concerns over the impact to homes • This information is only a piece of the process, an initial evaluation of each option was completed SRF 13 River Crossing Options — Initial Screening • Each option was evaluated based on: - Transportation - Social Impacts - Environmental Impacts - Economic Impacts SRF 14 River Crossing Options — Initial Screening • Transportation - Roadway and Intersection Capacity - Required Infrastructure • New roadway, interchanges, modified intersections - Freight Considerations - Pedestrian Safety SRF 15 River Crossing Options — Initial Screening • Social Impacts - Supports future development - Impacts to low income/minority populations (Environmenta Justice) - Impacts to community facilities SRF 16 River Crossing Options — Initial Screening Environmental Impacts - Parks - Historic Sites - Wetlands - DNR Public Waters - Biodiversity sites SRF ,7 River Crossing Options — Initial Screening • Economic Impacts - Residential - Local Business - Utility Facilities - Project Costs SRF River Crnssinn OntinnS — Initial Snrpenind saera➢po .___.... ,..___,.__, Flomanh m�t.➢a➢cpx➢t1a onn,,,➢-•-'-•_- (widen eRlWng M251 -._... __ j—, palm apee➢c owMxn a1n;::::: xp� UYr T�aPnveNme ort 6menRi1125P:re'9M10¢e Wleno^e�bne00a0N] Pe] A. IvP. rr mly vd�nv mY,spa wllp ap malocpha ¢➢9oaMm rxernmeeM re Ptd. cmmtrl cemem k:nrrwr-n mwn miH CYww ai MerwmntiwmvmlH SytlW 11 xyi �.ri -�� 11SN :". ramuslpwrem menMNe➢eie _ x,mwrel rw.. eNrVan�a rMN n. 0 41e�inv.d�+rpFwW wcersaemY aWe or lmdrpww'ni mer er oprvn et nllrepu.e a mmdramn>fCalll f6 Mlonpmo/ Bswr2P6 w herveen rpxrnew9lw'eAt Caonvn Brmmlmtepea ppppa,xw::p Oemwelb rewnweeltie'W wnle:,e rpacwtm. Rrrp I. PS maa��e anae hnerrmnew lGaoelFxlFwn r r iRwsRVPrwnov� Ywd:nmmleeenNrpeaeebb amwwmsakryemwmrwom oigr+av0i eeiwmwn nmsnl6.cpriaa�pwerl � Rte M liAeet n eti una ��i dna wi Cnxtn wM� pnbwrte-resmw lammPbeMmwrwoetlamss mntlalndpwxyetM nn WNLswq tiwe mneM1enMmroneua m�ksW ro%. IfuoelFe�Fbod rare u.0 �Po� ICK Law, SOx-N(nl � NN H .0m s r xp, - x,y, mwtlehwera<axmumeNmmoPrE mmaa w. m.P+l.a.euw~�e�w wtem�ltlty deal union hweo on aerie aewat mpwxm .cenm uEmm�ab^papulmena renes Icemmw edea mM9Q � I �lnx,.i934�rsee�xm,SO%-xtl:l redwm � xp� xy: awn �.rn I:�Ee➢Y6exrMSMRW f+1ew!mwNs1� rYisx1p11seL lnwl Ila _ enn vmneem Pr9ea.eerrarnemeryv.ciy em tarp mrm >a•^bw ^wbn * me wH mtr-a ..�aawmevnm•,nrge pm ees M k-feal Nn msp:mpeox ref :moen+a lw:munamewol:e maWamm m.0pR� lomlveM - -e:ceenew aexmntl cnuray naerk rmaetx �elayrrla.µaRreq uMw^l of rn•n1ae1.0ti rmmn0.es w'twl ae ataonWP reym qry p:oyees meaara.0.�a..0r 00 hamlmexne:an rnmw m Ye Nww _e^'°mbmrml vaH ter.^q muwmNera.y a <af RRxPsamrrn rrrexeo Mekonunw em � Ipn ^m^.a.ma.rdnle.el ^..ame.. m>.e PlmlpRrn osnL aM mpmwryrnrwnp wa Inodlmnneue neerw :watlawsxMxn mwmmtn wrNremMm mewrMnr wsewz wtnirt me mnwm mruxemaa rrsn:n mem➢vaaewer mnua mmm� iwne vecnwrm wals�em mea nee rewwof MpGwwrmy �rmwenme eweenmmrwwe w arWm Irrtpw arnnmerel m�iiar wewM�aeurwR arvmkne�e wlMOMrtaewwt ererae anMm in RNm Nmex➢pp Mr � -pp ml.dmnxarmr:a,edweno wRww r �In nw�� mP00.ma.an M.�mc.ppi xn>r 31aa+rrop; wear .an�� tl� 1 oen xaavwlw.tw lmv wnlxwll eaw okmeuhln rwwr Incarrnwnpuelwxmem ew xmemweec � Xnwec rMnr 4a eon on:ItM OM 6IB� °:rima xa marcmmnndms pm ,m �H9w pP ��nn�s...r ,.�nn�-��� �e4eo on eva ox Rxs63uem lbRmtpl nrlpW llYMM � :b araJ o^are tk Pxsus odes Nekwwl Ierlw ll�htp w.. .r.d eprrtaeM Mer me 6r�Fne.nsma.itlrma AeNmtre6�c 110 ow•ptpp- r RAY xr9fRan ➢nedlarF' INr mR,asmnnpmwnrm,aew m,ennw.,wp,n.narrn,.,x^ exenepne ,a.,,m:wl:mpens Lamfhnumeswrvvnas Rrwarme parwnxla..,par,ws.> aernet:rtpwrywskeywmel®kmF xa xonve �.y,L rr��..�`I��4r .��"` wme,rrflN,sdti+�}fir` nes -,a xeeme mk.^brmm eE asrneze Im mee preperytwesmm of elab[MnMr le -0a. n. E.r. t^..Rr1 1f�e mrgn�ta.nnsra x wwx wmmemaxan:a pwsmaanwxxwlswmea �.,.. mpmam wym.vnwr ce0v 0eq e.,.e0er mpma m,rm:y umnw �=°wan 4T'^et4de1pA xa0. ne^. tar.. Herm m newtreeie nar&Ke ^t9riAsa nusm NRN Yopbna.Rno.norpmimenevMssoronl �rromnamare: RlFry yeparms.,rnpaw yoltgRetm noun Nrent wmwrN omewtlorewm R Bwsr wW.nfswu "" tear Wue r'Aw ca 0 R R�ie p ix 26 R °" wr alis° Ca4H rmn ripe° em m xvr dtMreem: nemeewnw wwn ay eepnemv0eea asW xr.meeh0m,x 25m➢xn e0em eud mnwumm ma¢ paojwa arm Wp:wnreeav%wmnn eea 190 p10 Mpwn iR4-ab M:IFn iB6.p Mllmt -1BCA1:lwn ^ a�iM'.C�^ea�npWermwer r0epr00,.m1 xqa LwnpxleacartE FLY fLr xlysrei fLyAte RpRer G O GOVN TH 25 COALITI 0 Transportation • Pedestrian Poo ww Social Good , "w9mm Poor Environmental Poor Fair Fair Fair/Poor Economic Fair Fair Fair/Poor Good Positives • All Traffic • Supports Future Development • No Residential Impacts Negatives TH 25 COALITION • Biodiversity Impacts • Potential Utility and/or Park Impacts •191araIIIs �MRd � Fair/Poor Good Good Good/Fair Poor ' Fair/Poor Fair/Poor • No Residential • Pedestrian • Avoids • All Traffic Impacts Traffic in Biodiversity Sites • Supports Future Monticello • No Business Development Impacts • Avoids Park and • Construction Biodiversity Costs Impacts • All Traffic • Freight Traffic • Freight Traffic • Home Impacts • Environmental • Environmental • Environmental (12 - 20 homes) Justice Justice Justice • Park Impacts • Park Impacts • Park Impacts • Business Impacts • Business Impacts • Business Impacts (7) (4) (4) • Supports Future Development • Avoids Park and Community Impacts • New infrastructure needed • Wetland and Biodiversity Impacts • Construction Costs 20 Study Team Recommendations/Discussion • Carry Options A, D and E forward into more detailed evaluation • No further analysis on Options B1, B2 and C • Discussion/Coalition Recommendation SRF 2, Next Steps • Secondary Evaluation Process • Short and Long -Term Recommendations • Second Open House - Present Recommendations • Implementation Plan and Coalition Work Plan • Documentation SRF 22 Thank You! - Questions? Josh Maus SRF Consulting Group, Inc. jmaus@srfconsultin.g.com 763.249.6737 SRF TH 26 Area Study Draft Preliminary Evaluation Matrix (4/26/2018) Goal: Identity 2 or 3 Doti... to Crurry Foment Element (—C. existing TH 25) 1 (--y pair) Iyiretticvoluma on RE,11 h, — .11 1-1E Tx 211-1 2RC- 41—( h-. 141.- 1.1--d-)m 2— no 1--H-1— -1, SC/C., I— High H.�MMwmI., 1-k- TH h, wecuon volumemix l0/tux 11 I.Ch I"H. I .. n— I . g— , H h 11, A� ==H — —ad==d ­,H19.. Hi. hv­ 1h.— eoo/Bec kee/Big Lek 6arpapaNbxa�Meen bar of New 011- —11 — C,k- D —1d to ddRxH,1 11r, lene sol Expanses/Reconslmctea Raaa 51 ------------- P., ra.. OVERAU. TRANSK—ON SCORE — a— F.I,/ft.r se pens are currenq In eevelopmem. .���..,���,��,�l�.���.- provlae Muer auessrounaeraevelopaa areas High HS, Hin, fs°s Low, Hra, Ha, —In" Har) Iy.CMantl Courts maps r, E— Chdge III Or 11 Ilk 1h11r11 11, 111, N -11,t III ..d ,el -.1 _.H. .dx. k_j to -11u � -1 Hv. IknRam ac ues/excenr of impacu -.Hv,Ch—k/�E.=P,vk. IR*-,- IS I A-1111 d- 1"d h Gwe IMontisslppl park) Dr mobile vale wnninu Igor Y. La-11.ens am.rcantiminama ha -id-- M11 "'1 11, 11 1h, H—HH., —W,comaor impaction bweand—H91 R. ntl resources >vo�es known—I..d ..d H:nd 'Ld-assxlaree won won I —d (NWH eace Ave ,�R�117 h-1 .1h N. —11111.a� DNR IDNR —1d, I kl� R., ar- I � alta res oases ane otner rare Moms known sues wnnln anaxmile radius avail blervH15 GIS data Noformel rmlew nes been Poor r.1, ado-, -11� 1-. IS on.., H.1 2 lousy'xH.I E_. .entl Minimze h,., L.1.1 d -1d. "d I. -)hip O115k St,, nhau onelas Mlnlmae I.,—wwlM kv.— Lmal witty d..x,1. Impacts to unllry —11— ILS ImpaomR.- None N.hR 111, N11, =1R1. IZZ TI 2111-1 ardS,dre ........ . t key Amo seperate.luntlable palms pmlecttunaing I 1h, 1111 d d. N—ii.r Wltlen CEAH 11 hl =.d N �1 1H.2,1 N:* 11-1 EhdlR 2C I N: = R.= R. R., Br,dge H.Hk T' TH 25 ardp New rats TH 25 1 Ri,,r B,do, Eshmatee connmc0on costs Pmlectcosti nppoximme consvuceon ws[ S90-5110 Million $s0 -W Millwn $55 -so Million --.—RI .1, an'/— aavao« an'/—