Muyni
← Back to Anoka

Anoka City Council

Regular Meeting

Anoka, MN · August 28, 2023

AgendaMinutes

Minutes

August 28, 2023 (Worksession) Page 1 of 8 WORKSESSION OF THE ANOKA CITY COUNCIL ANOKA CITY HALL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION ROOM AUGUST 28, 2023 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Pro Tem Weaver called the worksession meeting to order at 5:01 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Present at roll call: Mayor Pro Tem Weaver, Councilmembers Scott, Skogquist, and Wesp. Staff present: City Manager Greg Lee, Community Development Director Doug Borglund, Senior City Planner Clark Palmer, Finance Director Brenda Springer, and City Attorney Scott Baumgartner; Golf Manager Larry Norland; Police Chief Eric Peterson; Police Captain Andy Youngquist; Liquor Store Manager Kevin Morelli; Public Works Director Mark Anderson; Communications and Recycling Manager Pam Bowman; Public Services Administrator Lisa LaCasse; Utility Director Del Vancura; City Attorney Scott Baumgartner. Absent: Mayor Rice. Item 3.3 was heard at this point in the agenda. 3. COUNCIL BUSINESS and/or DISCUSSION ITEMS 3.1 Discussion; TH10 Frontage Road Study. Assistant City Engineer Ben Nelson shared a staff report with background information stating this item was placed on the Council work session agenda to give staff and City Council an opportunity to discuss the findings of the proposed frontage road memorandum dated July 10, 2023 by Bolton & Menk. This document explores alternative frontage road alignment options, analyzed the traffic, developed a preliminary cost estimate, looked into available funding, reviewed recent investments/decisions (Greens of Anoka), and provides a recommendation. The high-level cost estimate for the frontage road is $3.5 to 4 million dollars and it is estimated that only 115 vehicles per day would use this new roadway. Council shall be aware; the current Federal and State grant funds the City of Anoka has received to date for the U.S. Highway 10/169 Improvement Project could not be utilized to construct the proposed frontage road since it was not part of the approved layout. The same applies to the Federal and States grant funds Anoka County has received to date for the U.S. Highway 10/169 Ramsey Gateway Project. And due to no truck highway benefit received from the August 28, 2023 (Worksession) Page 2 of 8 construction of the new Fairoak Frontage associated to U.S. Highway 10, MnDOT State money would not be an eligible funding source. Eric Johnson, Bolton & Menk, presented the findings of the proposed north frontage road concept in detail. He spoke about benefitting travel patterns, traffic forecast and travel patterns, trips per day, project cost and funding options which were limited as there would be no trunk highway benefit and only $1 million in funding from LRIP or TEDI sources. Mr. Nelson shared CIP impacts for a 2026 construction timeline that included preliminary engineering and design, final design and acquisition, and construction. Mayor Pro Tem Weaver said the drive that serves as a frontage road for Bamboo Village already existed and the City owns the adjacent property so this project was difficult to accept with infrastructure already in place. He said there should have been a frontage road included when designing the original project then spoke about constructing a road to Kings Island that doesn’t access anything either. He shared frustration and disappointment with lack of a frontage road and closing the liquor store which could have survived with a frontage road but did not support paying for this project. Councilmember Skogquist commented on the few total takings as a result of the Highway 10 project and agreed this could have been included with the full project but was a moot point now and agreed not to support this project moving forward. Council consensus was not to move forward with the proposed Fairoak frontage road. 3.2 Discussion; 2024 Budget – Enterprise Funds. Finance Director Brenda Springer shared a staff report with background information stating in August staff presented the proposed Enterprise and Governmental 2024 budgets and levy to Council during a worksession. She explained the City utilizes a fixed charge per meter for electric, water, and sewer utility charges. The fixed charge covers the cost of annual depreciation of the infrastructure for the utility, described as the cost of delivering service to end users. The current fixed charges are $10.70 for residential and small commercial electric meters, $40.00 for large commercial electric meters, $6.25 for water meters and $5.00 for sewer meters. The last increase to electric fixed charges was $1.00 to residential and small commercial rates only, effective 1/1/2022. The last increase to water fixed charges was $1 effective 1/1/2022. The last increase to sewer fixed charges was $0.25 effective 1/1/2022. Staff will be looking at proposing in November a water rate increase of $0.31 per 100 cu.ft. and a sewer rate increase of $0.38 per 100 cu.ft. There is no electric rate increase proposed at this time as we are continuing to pass through the energy adjustment clause August 28, 2023 (Worksession) Page 3 of 8 adjustments to our customers. When energy costs stabilize staff will meet with Council to propose an adjustment to rates. Ms. Springer reviewed the electric, water, sewer, storm utility, liquor and recycling budgets and general fund levy adjustments in detail and asked for Council input. Mayor Pro Tem Weaver asked if there is flexibility in the budget and enough revenue compared to competitors to keep electric rates below and still offset the proposed increases in any way. Utility Director Del Vancura responded staff looked at ways such as grants through DEED and were currently conducting a rate study which will be completed before any rating is done with the goal to remain under Xcel Energy’s rates. Ms. Springer added that on a monthly basis staff compares City rates with local competitors which are always lower but noted they did not take into account energy adjustment costs we pass on but will review further. Councilmember Skogquist shared rate comparisons and said most of the increase was to accommodate credit card billing and not the fixed asset then asked questions regarding capital of $3.2 million and reserves of $4 million and that these amounts would not make up enough ground and the need to do a baseline increase at least to not continue falling behind. Councilmember Scott confirmed revenue increases is exclusively volume based and not rate based and asked if it would be possible to see a matrix for all proposed increases to see the results. Mayor Pro Tem Weaver agreed, adding the City needs to remain ahead of the curve. Ms. Springer shared the enterprise funds are not adopted until December so staff can provide additional information before for Council review that includes a combination of fixed and rate increases for comparison. She said if we vary the rate there are legal requirements that would be needed including notification, public hearing, etc. Mayor Pro Tem Weaver stressed wanting to remain lower than competitors and find other ways to increase to make up the difference. Councilmember Wesp said they need to see the proposed increases to see the full range of impacts. Council consensus was to add review of proposed electric rate increases to the November worksession. Councilmember Wesp asked about proposed water rate increase and the needed maintenance. Public Services Director Mark Anderson responded maintenance included repair of water plants and using the garage fund to replenish the funds. August 28, 2023 (Worksession) Page 4 of 8 Councilmember Skogquist asked if the increase was based solely on supply or capacity. Mr. Anderson responded it was a combination of both. Councilmember Wesp asked what the proposed sewer rate increase would be for a standard single-family home. Mr. Lee said the measure was done in cubic feet and would be changed to gallons during the next meter change then said the average monthly use was 6,000 gallons per home. Councilmember Skogquist noted the cost of infrastructure was up but charges for consumption was flat and asked if that amount was passed through to the Metropolitan Council and if they will remain the same. Ms. Springer shared the Metropolitan Council plans to increase rates 8.6%. Mayor Pro Tem Weaver said we need to change and be flexible for a possible public hearing for sewer rate changes and asked if revenue for storm water rates would offset increases in revenue. Councilmember Skogquist asked for clarification on capital improvements not occurring. Ms. Springer said the decrease of 6.4% means we are budgeting a smaller increase in profits. Mr. Lee said staff may be recommending the addition of an environmental specialist position in the future to better respond to requests for water, air, ground pollution, and monitoring projects. Councilmember Skogquist said revenues for recycling are based on SCORE funding then noted professional services were down which mean Ace Solid Waste’s rate would remain flat. Councilmember Wesp asked if the dump truck update was removed. Mr. Lee said the current dump truck was 22 years old and could still remain but noted that cost comes from the garage fund and not the general fund. He asked about ARPA funds for items and the possibility of covering 3.5% of the levy for next year with the estimated cost for the river maintenance project at $345,000. Ms. Springer shared the proposed increase of 5% which would put an average home owner’s City property taxes at $1,062. Discussion was held regarding using ARPA funds for river maintenance or levy offset and the need to complete the maintenance project and create a model to sustain the budget going forward and build in infrastructure costs similar to larger utility companies. Ms. Springer said the tax rate is much lower than surrounding cities and recommended possible increases there too in addition to rate increases to sustain the budget going forward. August 28, 2023 (Worksession) Page 5 of 8 Mayor Pro Tem spoke about the importance of maintaining the river as it was so important to the City. Ms. Springer spoke about storm water rates to help cover river restoration and using docks revenue for park capital and how the storm water fund could help fund river maintenance as it was all water related. She said she envisions future capital expenditures for 2025 to be less and only include COLA, insurance, any new positions, and slight fluctuations in contracts. She said we will not have to make up $2 million in lost revenue in 2025 and noted the interest for the training center was occurring now with next year being principal. Councilmember Skogquist added next year’s impact for tax base for industrial buildings will be higher which grows the tax base and dilutes the rate which will also help as well as other future projects. Council consensus was to use ARPA funds for river maintenance through storm water funds and review the budget line items in all areas to help make up the difference. 3.3 Discussion; Consideration of Renewing the Annual Memorandum of Understanding for School Resource and Prevention Program Officer Services in Anoka. Chief Eric Peterson shared a staff report with background information stating staff would like direction from Council related to recent amendments to Statute pertaining to the use of force by school resource officers (SROs) and other officers working in school settings. He stated the information has been shared with Representative Stephenson and Senator Abler along with the City and County Attorneys, Sherriff, and fellow police chiefs. He outlined the changes in detail that related to limiting use of force towards students, explicitly prohibiting the use of prone restraint, and use of compressive restraint on the head, neck and torso. He said while the intent of the changes is to ensure the safety and well being of students is commendable, there are unintended consequences that need to be considered, including ambiguity for officers, safety concerns, and training and implementation. He shared with only weeks remaining before school begins it is disappointing that law enforcement agencies have yet to receive guidance and training from the State on the new law. He shared his support for sentiments raised in letters by the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association and full support of the school districts on how to best provide security to all schools. He said the Minnesota Attorney General was asked to provide full legal interpretation of the law and noted the City currently has two SROs assigned to Anoka High School and Anoka Middle School for the Arts. He said he has been in contact with school and district staff to make them aware of the City’s hesitancy to provide a continued contracted SRO or other coverage until an agreeable solution is in place. August 28, 2023 (Worksession) Page 6 of 8 Mayor Pro Tem Weaver confirmed not renewing the SRO contract would not prevent response in uniform if there’s an incident at the high school and if not contracted the new Statute would not apply. Councilmember Scott asked for benchmarks and value adds for SROs and how often police have to intervene. Chief Peterson shared how SROs engage with students and build trust, engage students for possible future recruitment and create and maintain trust, adding it was rare to intervene but when that sometimes force is needed to regain control. Mayor Pro Tem Weaver said he met with Ady Wicks of Anoka High School regarding concerns at Goodrich Field during football games. Chief Peterson said the department would treat school events like any other event with large numbers of people and said he has met with the principals of both schools and if there are no contracted officers, they will act under either his or command staff’s direction and not the school. Councilmember Skogquist shared his disappointment with the way this law occurred, which was similar to cannabis in that the legislature didn’t understand the resulting law. He shared disappointment with the League of Minnesota Cities and lobbyists who are paid to monitor sessions and how this should have been addressed during the session. He spoke about the value of the SRO program that was less intervention and more proactive policing and the positive relationship building and while he understood the recommendation felt it may be short-sighted due to the resulting consequences and asked if response with the law in place was a concern by officers. Chief Peterson agreed with the value of the program but said officers were very uncomfortable with having to use two different responses to situations and make those determinations in a split-second subjecting themselves to potential prosecution while doing their jobs, adding fellow chiefs and departments felt the same way. Mayor Pro Tem Weaver confirmed an officer could be criminally charged if a student was emotionally disturbed as a result of an incident. Chief Peterson said the ambiguity of the Statute could allow for that, including both officers and school staff. Councilmember Wesp shared concerns about Governor Walz’s glib response to the potential of officers being charged and said it was not the League’s responsibility but the Legislature and Attorney General’s responsibility to inform cities of outcomes and said he did not want to subject officers to this exposure. He shared support for Chief Peterson and staff’s recommendation should not be taken lightly. He said he did not want to see their ability to protect downgraded and result in potential lawsuits and supported Chief’s direction. Mayor Pro Tem Weaver agreed. August 28, 2023 (Worksession) Page 7 of 8 Mr. Lee shared Mayor Rice’s support for Chief’s direction regarding SROs as well. Councilmember Scott agreed then asked about the Step School. Chief Peterson said the department was not contracted with their district but said the same would apply except for private schools as they are exempt. He shared his hope that this action was temporary and that clarification will come soon. Councilmember Skogquist said many small cities in the state don’t have SROs and asked how they deal with students. Chief Peterson shared about a smaller Anoka County city who dropped their contract as result of the school’s request and how they still interact through patrol and maintain the desire for positive relationships, adding it was easier to do so as that school was smaller. Councilmember Skogquist asked about contract and staffing response. Chief Peterson said the loss of $160,000 for the contract will be offset by the public safety aid to compensate revenue loss with the hope to amend the budget again if clarified. Councilmember Skogquist said he supported the recommendation but was disappointed and confirmed officers will still be near the school for response when needed. Mr. Lee said this action was devastating as this has been a great program for many years and was incredibly helpful to students and suggested adding language to the contract instead regarding no physical contact. Mayor Pro Tem Weaver said he felt that would circumvent Statute and that we should let the Legislature do their job and call a special session. City Attorney Scott Baumgartner said he was disappointed as well and felt while the legislators were clear they but missed speaking with law enforcement before adoption then spoke about unintended consequences left to local jurisdictions to address. He said while he would like to find some middle ground officer training to gain control of a student would still be gone. He said he had no concerns that an officer would respond correctly if needed and that they would always put public safety first no matter what. Councilmember Wesp said the Governor was unclear with his response but reiterated the response from the Anoka County Attorney who said the County was withdrawing from Andover schools as well. Council consensus was to support not renewing the annual Memorandum of Understanding for School Resource and Prevention Program Officer Services in Anoka at this time. August 28, 2023 (Worksession) Page 8 of 8 UPDATES/REPORTS/COUNCIL SUGGESTIONS FOR TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS None. 4. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Scott, seconded by Councilmember Skogquist to adjourn the Worksession at 7:04 p.m. to enter into a closed executive session pursuant to MN Statute 13D.05, subd. 3(b) to discuss the following: Property 1: 36-32-25-34-0007 or 649 West Garfield Property 2: 06-31-24-13-0111/06-31-24-13-0112 or 750 North Street Property 3: 01-31-25-41-0134/06-31-24-31-0127/01-31-25-41-0135/01-31-25-41-0136 or 2315 2nd Avenue Property 4: 06-31-24-34-0133 or 657 East Main Street Property 5: 06-31-24-13- 0110 or 710 North Street Property 6: 06-31-24-21-0087 or 521 Johnson Street Property 7: 06-31-24-21-0086 or 517 Johnson Street Property 8: 06-31-24-21-0084 or 505 Johnson Street Property 9: 06-31-24-24-0061 or 548 Pierce Street Property 10: 06-31-2424-0069 or 2610 5th Avenue Property 11: 30-32-3424-0007 or 7th Avenue & Bunker Lake Blvd Property 12 &13: 01-31-25-14-0015/01-31-25-14-0016 or 2606 Ferry Street & 2600 Ferry Street Property 14: 07-31-24-21-0014/07-31-24-21-0019/07-31-24-21-0010/07-31- 24-21-0012/07-31-24-21-0011 or 7th & East Main Property 15: 01-31-25-22-0083 or 901 Hwy 10. Motion carried. Submitted by: Cathy Sorensen, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Approval Attestation: Amy T. Oehlers, City Clerk

Agenda

City Council Agenda - Worksession Monday, August 28, 2023, 5:00 p.m. Council Worksession Room 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. COUNCIL BUSINESS and/or DISCUSSION ITEMS 3.1 Discussion; Fairoak /TH10 Frontage Road Study. 3.2 Discussion; 2024 Budget - Enterprise Funds. 3.3 Discussion; Consideration of Renewing the Annual Memorandum of Understanding For School Resource and Prevention Program Officer Services in Anoka. UPDATES/REPORTS/COUNCIL SUGGESTIONS FOR TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. 5. ADJOURNMENT Members of the Anoka City Council may participate remotely in City Council meetings by interactive technology rather than by being physically present. Members of the public who desire to give input or testimony remotely may do so by attending via video conference (Zoom Webinar). The Zoom Webinar link will be posted prior to the meeting on the City of Anoka's website calendar at: https://www.anokaminnesota.com/calendar.aspx?CID=14. To access the link, from the online calendar, find the correct meeting date and click "More Details." Meetings by telephone or other electronic means in accordance with Minnesota Statute 13D.021. 1 of 53 Meeting Date: August 28, 2023 Agenda Section: Council Business and/or Discussion Items Item Description: Fairoak/TH-10 Frontage Road Study Submitted By: Ben Nelson, Assistant City Engineer BACKGROUND INFORMATION On November 3, 2014, City Council accepted the Trunk Highway 10 Access Planning Study. On July 6, 2015, City Council adopted a resolution approving the Anoka Solution Plan for Highway 10. On September 21, 2015, the City received notice from Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for the FY 2017 Municipal Agreement Program stating that the Green Haven Parkway Phase I project was selected for a MnDOT program contribution of $710,000 toward the project. At the June 26, 2016, work session meeting, City Council provided unanimous consent for the City of Anoka to lead the U.S. Highway 10/169 Improvement Project and committed $2M million dollars towards the project. At the October 24, 2016, work session meeting, City Council provided unanimous consent for staff to begin the study to close the City’s liquor stores due to the decreasing sales trend and eventually the stores where predicted to start losing money. On November 9, 2020, the City received notice from MnDOT for a $710,000 commitment to the MnDOT partnership contribution to the Green Haven Parkway Phase II project. At the April 17, 2023, regular meeting, City Council made a motion to move forward with exploring a proposed frontage road extension on the north side of Highway 10 originating at Fairoak Avenue to approximately Calvary Cemetery to serve access to the local businesses to the west. DISCUSSION This item is placed on the City Council work session agenda to give staff and City Council an opportunity to discuss the findings of the proposed frontage road memorandum dated July 10, 2023 by Bolton & Menk. This document explores alternative frontage road alignment options, analyzed the traffic, developed a preliminary cost estimate, looked into available funding, reviewed recent investments/decisions (Greens of Anoka), and provides a recommendation. Eric Johnson, Project Engineer with Bolton & Menk, will present the findings of the proposed frontage road concept and will try to address council questions. 2 of 53 FINANCIAL IMPACT The high-level cost estimate for the frontage road is $3.5 to 4 million dollars and it is estimated that only 115 vehicles per Currently Looking West @ Fairoak Avenue day would use this new roadway. Council shall be aware; the current Federal and State grant funds the City of Anoka has received to date for the U.S. Highway 10/169 Improvement Project could not be utilized to construct the proposed frontage road since it was not part of the approved layout. The same applies to the Federal and States grant funds Anoka County has received to date for the U.S. Highway 10/169 Ramsey Gateway Project. And due to no truck highway benefit received from the construction of the new Fairoak Frontage associated to to U.S. Highway 10, MnDOT State money would not be an eligible funding source. REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION Staff is seeking input on the findings and will answer questions council may have on the proposed Fairoak frontage road concept. Staff is seeking direction on the implementation and further consideration of this project. 3 of 53 MEMORANDUM Date: July 10, 2023 To: Ben Nelson, Assistant City Engineer From: Eric Johnson, P.E. Subject: North frontage road concept Project No.: N16.118953 Introduction The City Council directed staff at the April 17, 2023, meeting to further investigate the feasibility of establishing a new frontage road on the north side of Highway 10. The new road would originate at Fairoak Avenue extending west to Calvary Cemetery providing access to the local businesses adjacent to Highway 10. The new frontage road would be owned and Looking west from Fairoak Avenue on the north side of Highway 10 maintained by the city. The Anoka Solution will be substantially complete in 2023 H:\ANOK\T44119364\CAD\MS\figures\N Frontage Rd Connection\Anoka Frontage Road Memo (6-29-23).docx 4 of 53 Name: North frontage road concept Date: July 10, 2023 Page: 2 Alternative Frontage Road Alignment The following concept for a north frontage road was developed to provide the most direct route along Highway 10 while minimizing impacts to businesses so costs and impacts could be assessed at a high level. Other alignment options may be possible, but for the purposes of this discussion only the alignment shown below is considered. The concept of a north frontage road has not been submitted or reviewed with MnDOT. The following are initial comments regarding primary considerations and elements of risk for either cost or support by MnDOT. Private Property Impacts - The project will require significant impacts to Honest-1 Auto Care and Bamboo Village essentially acquiring all property south of their buildings. This includes relocation of their signs. The project will also need to acquire property from all businesses on the north side of Highway 10 in addition to Calvary Cemetery. The city just finished working with all these property owners for the Highway 10 improvements and has already compensated Honest-1 Auto Care, the Home Center, and Calvary Cemetery for the impacts and changed conditions. Alignment in MnDOT Property - To maintain access and allow the existing businesses to remain in place, the proposed frontage road needs to be primarily located in MnDOT property and due to this, the proximity to Highway 10 generates the need for a retaining wall. The current conditions of Highway 10 in this location includes guardrail and a 1:2 slope, but there also needs to be enough space to allow for future expansion of an additional lane on Highway 10. 5 of 53 Name: North frontage road concept Date: July 10, 2023 Page: 3 Risk for approval by MnDOT: Approval for placement of this roadway on MnDOT property is at risk as it would require an agreement for MnDOT to allow the city to construct, determine liability, and maintenance requirements of this roadway. This project would also add more infrastructure for MnDOT to maintain indefinitely. The city would need to demonstrate a strong need to modify what is currently under construction with a new project. Retaining Wall - With the existing steep slopes and need for expansion, it is not feasible to construct the frontage road without a retaining wall. It should be possible to construct the wall without impacting Highway 10 as currently being constructed, but the wall would need to avoid the tie backs to the new retaining wall for Highway 10. This would limit the options to a gravity precast modular block or cast-in- place wall. For the exercise of this preliminary review, a cast-in-place wall was assumed as this is the more conservative option. The wall will have a height of approximately 10’. Risk for MnDOT approval: Implications of indefinite maintenance of this retaining wall as it supports the trunk highway. Guardrail - Guardrail would need to be added along Highway 10. This is necessary to protect errant vehicles from going over the new retaining wall and for the fact that the new frontage road would fall within the Highway 10 clear zone. Risk for MnDOT approval: Adding this guardrail introduces additional roadside hazards, as well as adding another item for ongoing maintenance by MnDOT. Snow Storage – The frontage road as drawn will not meet the snow storage standard that the Anoka Solution project was designed to provide. With this design, wakes from snowplows will not be allowed on Highway 10, slowing plows down. Risk for MnDOT approval: This is another aspect of increased maintenance cost, slowing of traffic, and additional snow removal by snow blower and trucks thus adding exposure to the crew. The result of additional snow storage would directly result in more impacts to the private business properties benefitting from the proposed frontage road. Stormwater and Drainage – The proposed retaining wall required for the proposed frontage road runs along the same alignment as the outlet pipe for what will become MnDOT’s new pond for Highway 10. The easiest solution would be to move the pipe out of the zone of influence of the wall, but there could be some optimization with wall placement or an alternative of casing the existing pipe. The existing pond will be impacted by the frontage road, so it will need to be regraded to accommodate volume needs. The project will add more impervious so considering the need to treat more runoff, the easiest solution would be in MnDOT’s pond. If that is the case, the pond would have to be sized to accommodate the additional volume and MnDOT would have to be compensated. The frontage road would add about 0.6 acres of impervious surface, which again would increase the amount of water that needs to go either into the pond or the city system. Risk for MnDOT approval: An agreement would be needed between the City and MnDOT for the pond to document the respective volumes, along with ownership, maintenance, and financial responsibilities by 6 of 53 Name: North frontage road concept Date: July 10, 2023 Page: 4 each party. Since the proposal would be for the city to modify and utilize what will be an existing MnDOT pond, MnDOT would have the ability to decline the request by the city. Highway Sign Impacts - One larger type A sign with structural steel posts would be impacted by the retaining wall needed for the frontage road. Public Lighting impacts – Impacts to the lighting system are minimal. One light pole along Verndale Avenue may need to be relocated. TMS Fiber Optic - The Traffic Management System (TMS) fiber optic line will need to be relocated as the current location falls within proximity to the retaining wall. Sanitary & Watermain - Impacts to sewer and water would be minor, adjustments to valves and manhole covers. There is a sanitary line under Verndale Avenue and watermain runs under Verndale Avenue and to the west. Risk for MnDOT approval: MnDOT may require the City to case the existing utilities. Roadway Section - To minimize impacts in this review, the Frontage Rd is designed with 14’ lanes matching the frontage road east of Fairoak Avenue. Traffic Analysis A travel time analysis was completed to determine the time savings of implementing an alternative frontage road. First, peak hour and daily volumes entering and exiting the 3 buildings shown below were estimated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition). The AM peak period is between 7:00 – 9:00 AM and the PM peak period is between 4:00 – 6:00 PM. Businesses Considered for Travel Time Benefits with Alternative Frontage Road Connection 7 of 53 Name: North frontage road concept Date: July 10, 2023 Page: 5 The square footage of each building was estimated using Google, considering buildings 1 and 3 have a second floor. Land Use Code 712 for a Small Office Building was used to estimate trips for building 2 and Land Use Code 710 for a General Office Building was used to estimate trips for buildings 1 and 3. Table 1 shows the estimated peak hour and daily volumes entering and exiting the three buildings. Table 1. Trip Generation Summary Time of Day Trip Generation AM Peak PM Peak Daily Hour Hour Enter 64 17 264 Exit 10 62 265 Total 74 79 529 Table 1 indicates between 74-79 trips are estimated to be generated by the three buildings during the AM and PM peak hour and 529 trips are estimated to be generated by the three buildings during an overall day. A travel times analysis was completed in Public Transport Simulation (PTV) Vissim software for the PM peak hour to and from each of the areas shown with yellow arrows in the figure below. Travel times were compared for the existing build design which assumes traffic will get to and from the businesses via Brighton Street and the alternative frontage road alignment which would add a new access along Fairoak Avenue parallel to Highway 10. The proposed frontage road access was assumed to be stop controlled at Fairoak Avenue, with Fairoak Avenue traffic having the right of way. The trips were proportionally distributed based on the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on each roadway. Travel Time Analysis Locations - Table 2 shows the travel time with the current build condition and the alternative frontage road option. 8 of 53 Name: North frontage road concept Date: July 10, 2023 Page: 6 Table 2. Travel Time Summary Alternative Current Build Frontage Road Travel Time Condition* Enter/ Option (seconds) Travel Time Measurements Exit Travel Time Travel Time Savings Per (seconds) Per (seconds) Per Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Entering from TH 10 west of Thurston Ave 198 156 42 Entering from TH 10 east of Main St 85 97 -12 Traffic Entering Entering from Thurston Ave north of TH 10 138 175 -37 Business Entering from Cutters Grove Ave south of TH 10 154 114 41 Area Entering from Fairoak Ave south of TH 10 226 126 100 Entering from Main St south of TH 10 134 151 -17 Exiting to TH 10 west of Thurston Ave 179 190 -11 Exiting to TH 10 east of Main St 135 187 -52 Traffic Exiting Exiting to Thurston Ave north of TH 10 123 172 -49 Business Exiting to Cutters Grove Ave south of TH 10 162 175 -13 Area Exiting to Fairoak Ave south of TH 10 93 100 -7 Exiting to Main St south of TH 10 127 157 -30 * Trips routed on Greenhaven Parkway and Brighton Street in the current build condition. Table 2 shows that of the 12 movements analyzed, only 3 would be improved, while 9 would get worse on the new roadway. The alternative frontage road option is anticipated to reduce the travel time for traffic entering the business area from Highway 10 west of Thurston Avenue, Cutters Grove Avenue south of Highway 10, and from Fairoak Avenue south of Highway 10. However, the travel time for all other movements is anticipated to increase with the alternative frontage road option. The three movements that have an anticipated reduction account for 8 of the 17 PM peak hour trips anticipated to enter the business area. This shows that the remaining 9 trips entering and 62 trips exiting are all anticipated to experience an increase in travel time with the proposed design. Although the travel distance may be slightly shorter for some movements with the alternative frontage road concept, the intersection delay for the new intersection along Fairoak Ave is higher than the current intersection vehicles would use at Brighton Street and Green Haven Parkway. This increase in delays is causing an increase in travel time for movements where the travel distance is shorter than the current condition. It is estimated 115 vehicles per day would use this new roadway. 9 of 53 Name: North frontage road concept Date: July 10, 2023 Page: 7 Cost Considerations A high-level cost estimate has been completed as shown below. For planning purposes, the estimated total cost to construct this frontage road is estimated at $3.5 - $4 million in 2026 dollars, including property acquisition and indirect costs. As risks noted in this memo are addressed, the cost to construct will likely rise. This project is not eligible for any of the funding in-hand from the Highway 10 project. This frontage road project would not be eligible for most competitive grant programs as there is no benefit to the Trunk Highway system with this project. There are two competitive grant programs that could be considered for this project would be Minnesota’s Local Road Improvement Program (LRIP) and Transportation Economic Development Infrastructure (TEDI). Success in these solicitations is unlikely as the need and benefits are low when compared to projects that typically win this funding. TEDI funds would require a committed development that would create jobs that could show a clear need for this connection. The award would likely be approximately $1M if funded with either of these programs. 10 of 53 Name: North frontage road concept Date: July 10, 2023 Page: 8 Preliminary Design Opinion of Cost N Frontage Rd Connection DRAFT Anoka, MN 6/25/2023 Item Unit Total Qty Unit Price Total Cost MAJOR ROADWAY AND SIDEWALK REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 3,000 $ 5.00 $ 15,000 REMOVE CURB & GUTTER LF 800 $ 6.00 $ 5,000 EXCAVATION - COMMON CY 2,000 $ 6.00 $ 12,000 COMMON EMBANKMENT (CV) CY 1,000 $ 12.00 $ 12,000 (1) (2) (3) AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5 CY 1,200 $ 30.00 $ 36,000 (1) TYPE SP BITUMINOUS MIX (ROAD - WEARING) TON 1,300 $ 80.00 $ 104,000 (2) 6" CONCRETE WALK SF 7,700 $ 10.00 $ 77,000 (3) 8" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 900 $ 90.00 $ 81,000 CURB AND GUTTER LF 3,200 $ 29.00 $ 93,000 GUARDRAIL LF 800 $ 30.00 $ 24,000 CONCRETE RETAINING WALL SF 6,750 $ 100.00 $ 680,000 Subtotal $ 1,139,000 PRECENTAGE ITEMS MOBILIZATION 5% of all $ 60,000 DRAINAGE 15% of all $ 170,000 MISC REMOVALS (SIGNS, TREES, ETC.) 5% of all $ 60,000 SIGNING & PAVEMENT MARKINGS 5% of all $ 60,000 TURF ESTABLISHMENT AND EROSION CONTROL 3% of all $ 30,000 TRAFFIC CONTROL 3% of all $ 30,000 CONTINGENCY FOR MISSING ITEMS 15% of all $ 170,000 Subtotal $ 580,000 Construction Cost (2026 Dollars) $ 1,720,000 Anticipated Right-of-Way Cost (2026 Dollars) $ 1,430,000 Engineering Cost (2026 Dollars) $ 500,000 Total Cost (2026 Dollars) $ 3,650,000 Notes: 1. Roadway Section = 4" Bit (wear) - 8" Agg Base 2. Walk Section = 4" Concrete - 6" Agg Base 3. Driveway Apron = 8" Concrete - 6" Agg Base 11 of 53 Name: North frontage road concept Date: July 10, 2023 Page: 9 Recent Investments and Decisions The Highway 10 corridor through the City of Anoka had been studied numerous times since the 1990’s, resulting in no actual change due to the high price tag and lack of a shared vision. In 2013, the Minnesota Department of Transportation completed a study of this corridor that achieved regional needs while providing community improvements that were supported by all partners. Around that same time the city began visioning for this area as shown in the Greens of Anoka Redevelopment Master Plan. After the MnDOT study was completed in 2014, the City of Anoka realized they needed to lead the project to promote the city goals and realize the most benefits for the local transportation system as well as the overall community. The City’s focus was to develop a singular vision all parties could support, as well as develop a funding plan to realize these improvements. With the City leading the project, the community’s values are prominently featured in the design. The project enhances community connectivity by providing a new, continuous roadway network on both sides of the highway. The vision is consistent with the Greens of Anoka Redevelopment Master Plan. Achieving community connectivity required creative design when shifting the highway to avoid the three cemeteries surrounding the project, while simultaneously minimizing impacts to the commercial business district. The series of graphics below show the evolution of the planning and implementation of Green Haven Parkway over the past decade. 12 of 53 Name: North frontage road concept Date: July 10, 2023 Page: 10 13 of 53 Name: North frontage road concept Date: July 10, 2023 Page: 11 Recommendation The community has invested significant resources in Green Haven Parkway and the Highway 10 corridor. With the ongoing construction and permanent access changes it is recognized a lot of change is occurring. Upon completion of the Highway 10 project travel through, around, and within the community will be safer, more efficient, and reliable – much more so than it has been in recent history. As noted in the traffic section above, there is no significant traffic/travel time benefit created by constructing an additional connection to the west of Fairoak Avenue. In fact, it would only serve 115 vehicles per day as most of the existing patterns that are being built with the Highway 10 project are more efficient. There are many risks that need to be further explored. Getting approval from MnDOT to construct a north frontage road project would prove difficult as there is no real benefit to the traveling public as far as safety and efficiency is concerned. Additional impacts would be caused upon properties west of Fairoak Avenue. Many of these private property owners have already been compensated for the access changes and impacts to their properties through the current Highway 10 project; they would need to be contacted again for a proposed north frontage road, with additional compensation to be 14 of 53 Name: North frontage road concept Date: July 10, 2023 Page: 12 negotiated. Another risk is the City may have to authorize the eminent domain process for the proposed property acquisitions. A north frontage road project would be expensive and challenging to justify from a cost-to-benefit perspective to the local taxpayers. It is likely that if this proposed project were to be developed further, the alignment of the frontage road would slide further north and severely impact the parking and circulation on additional private property. The needed funding noted above for this connection would likely grow as well. Based on the information and discussion outlined in this memo, the Bolton & Menk team does not recommend further consideration of this project. 15 of 53 3.2 Meeting Date: August 28, 2023 Agenda Section: Council Business/Discussion Item Description: Discussion; Enterprise Fund Budgets Submitted By: Brenda Springer, Finance Director BACKGROUND INFORMATION On Monday, August 7, 2023, city staff presented the proposed Enterprise and Governmental 2024 budgets and levy to City council during a work session. The City utilizes a fixed charge per meter for electric, water, and sewer utility charges. The fixed charge covers the cost of annual depreciation of the infrastructure for the utility, described as the cost of delivering service to end users. The current fixed charges are $10.70 for residential and small commercial electric meters, $40.00 for large commercial electric meters, $6.25 for water meters and $5.00 for sewer meters. The last increase to electric fixed charges was $1.00 to residential and small commercial rates only, effective 1/1/2022. The last increase to water fixed charges was $1 effective 1/1/2022. The last increase to sewer fixed charges was $0.25 effective 1/1/2022. Staff will be looking at proposing in November a water rate increase of $0.31 per 100 cu.ft. and a sewer rate increase of $0.38 per 100 cu.ft. There is no electric rate increase proposed at this time as we are continuing to pass through the energy adjustment clause adjustments to our customers. When energy costs stabilize staff will meet with council to propose an adjustment to rates. This Evening will focus on the Enterprise funds. Some specific items of note include: Electric 1) Roof, Alarm, Gate ($280k total) $126,000 (carryforward) 2) Shop heaters / Paint Building $244,000 3) 2024 Franklin Area SRP $145,184 4) AMI meter system conversion $100,000 5) 2024 Hwy 10 Ramsey relocation $500,000 6) SCADA at Garfield, Enterprise, Crooked Lake $70,000 7) Breakers and busswork Crooked Lake $200,000 8) Bucket Truck #146 $300,000 9) Enterprise substation 115kva transformer $900,000 10) 2024 Transformer purchases (not subs) $575,000 Water 1) SSIP McKinley Park $55,000 2) 2024 SRP Franklin Area $387,000 3) Hwy 10 Rum River $6,556 4) Well Inspection & Repair $65,000 5) Reconditioning WT2 $1,800,000 6) Anoka Well 1 & 2Stabilization $750,000 16 of 53 Sewer 1) 7th Ave/TH47 Trunk Sewer $521,000 2) 2024 SRP Franklin Area $257,000 3) Hwy 10 Rum River CO#2 $81,964 4) Hwy 10 Rum River CO#31 $8,663 Storm 1) 2024 SRP Franklin Area $820,000 2) John Ward Park Drainage $30,000 3) Trunk Storm Improvements $150,000 Liquor 1) East Store Relocation $3,500,000 FINANCIAL IMPACT Water rate increase $0.31 per 100 cu.ft. Sewer rate increase $0.38 per 100 cu.ft. Estimated total annual revenue increase = $440,000 Average customers use 802 cu.ft. per month and could see an increase of $2.49 per month for water and $2.18 per month for sewer. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Included is the proposed 2024 enterprise fund budget, highlighting specific changes in each fund. Review, discuss and provide input and proposals for the 2024 budget. 17 of 53 ELECTRIC Increase / 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Decrease % Difference 2022 Actual Revenues 34,542,000 36,420,000 1,878,000 5.44% 36,984,300 Cost of Purchased Power 27,000,000 28,100,000 1,100,000 4.07% 26,199,948 GROSS PROFIT 7,542,000 8,320,000 778,000 10.32% 10,784,352 Operational Costs: Personal Services 2,487,910 2,746,990 259,080 10.41% 2,698,251 Supplies/Inventory 835,560 1,911,500 1,075,940 128.77% 1,201,984 Professional Services 1,396,470 1,853,880 457,410 32.75% 1,677,892 Maintenance 1,553,000 1,750,600 197,600 12.72% 1,338,631 Capital, see below 5,295,800 3,260,184 (2,035,616) -38.44% 1,211,182 NET PROFIT (4,026,740) (3,203,154) 823,586 20.45% 2,656,412 Transfers Out (775,000) (775,000) - 0.00% (775,000) Change in Working Capital Positive=Profit / Negative=Loss (12,230) 214,714 226,944 -1855.63% 3,408,592 Capital Equipment & Improvements: Capital Improvements Roof, Alarm, Gate ($280k total) 126,000 *carry 2023 budget forward Capital Improvements Shop heaters, Paint Building 244,000 Capital Improvements 2024 Franklin Area SRP 145,184 Capital Improvements AMI meter system conversion 100,000 Capital Improvements 2024 Hwy 10 Ramsey relocation 500,000 Capital Improvements SCADA at Garfield, Enterprise, Crooked Lake 70,000 Capital Improvements Breakers and buss work Crooked Lake 200,000 Capital Equipment Bucket truck #146 300,000 Capital Equipment Enterprise substation 115kva transformer 900,000 Capital Equipment 2024 Transformer purchases (not subs) 575,000 18 of 53 Total 3,260,184 ELECTRIC Changes from 2023 - 2024: Revenues: 5.44% Increase based on actual 2022 sales - accounts for loss of industrial customer Purchased Power: 4.07% Increase based on projected changes to consumption and energy adjustment clause Personal Services 10.41% COLA increase of 3.25%, Insurance cost estimate at 12.0%, increased PT hours Supplies/Inventory 128.77% Increase based on actual 2022/2023 price changes, with anticipated additional increases Some inventory items have seen 200% price increase since 2020/2021 Purchased power in this category, but largest changes are infrastructure inventory items Professional Services 32.75% Increased budget for technology items (customer portal, credit card charges) Increase to fixed fee in 2022 was implemented to cover these known increases Professional services related to capital items will become part of the asset Professional services related to billable projects can be partially recouped Maintenance 12.72% Projected increase to franchise fee paid to the City Increased central garage expense Increased maintenance costs from Monarch and OSI Capital -38.44% Annual budgeted capital decreased for 2024. The dollar amount of all capital assets is CR at the end of the year and added to the balance sheet as an asset. The cost of capital is shown as depreciation. 2024 depreciation cost, shown below, reflects the annualized Depreciation 25.00% Increase based on actual 2022 expense, this number varies based on the type of depreciable assets added to the system. This is the cost of capital spread out over the life of the asset. Transfer Out to other funds 0.00% $700,000 budgeted transfer to general fund $75,000 budgeted transfer to building capital 19 of 53 WATER Increase / 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Decrease % Difference 2022 Actual Revenues 2,252,000 2,441,000 189,000 8.39% 2,181,756 Operational Costs: Personal Services 534,620 556,500 21,880 4.09% 515,940 Supplies 120,600 148,900 28,300 23.47% 140,149 Professional Services 334,260 337,560 3,300 0.99% 431,053 Maintenance 110,100 144,900 34,800 31.61% 92,012 Capital Equipment & Improvement 1,834,600 3,063,556 1,228,956 66.99% 5,355,400 NET PROFIT (682,180) (1,810,416) (1,099,936) -165.39% (4,352,798) Depreciation & Asset Transfer 1,304,600 2,493,556 1,188,956 4,776,600 Principle & Interest - - - (113,634) Transfers Out - - - (210,000) Change in Working Capital Positive=Profit / Negative=Loss 622,420 683,140 60,720 9.76% 100,168 Capital Equipment & Improvements: Capital Improvements SSIP Mckinley Park 55,000 Capital Improvements 2024 SRP FranklinArea 387,000 Capital Improvements HWY 10 Rum River 6,556 Capital Improvements Well Inspection & Repair 65,000 Capital Improvements Reconditioning WT 2 1,800,000 Capital Improvements Anoka Well 1 & 2 Stabilization 750,000 Total 3,063,556 20 of 53 WATER Finance proposes to increase the water rates as follows: Current Proposed Rates Rates Rate per 100 cu.ft. 1.55 1.86 20.00% for below winter average usage Rate per 100 cu.ft. above 2,000 cu. Ft. 1.71 2.05 19.65% above 4,000 cu. Ft. 1.94 2.33 19.85% Fixed Charge: Residential 7.25 7.25 0.00% Commercial 13.50 13.50 0.00% Industrial 187.95 187.95 0.00% Example: Average Residential Monthly Usage: 802 cu.ft. 19.68 22.17 12.63% This represents a 12.6% increase in water rates for the average residential home. 21 of 53 SEWER Increase / 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Decrease % Difference 2022 Actual Revenues 2,853,000 3,111,500 258,500 9.06% 2,997,239 Operational Costs: Personal Services 542,000 568,500 26,500 4.89% 550,355 Supplies 24,000 25,000 1,000 4.17% 14,572 Professional Services 1,922,140 2,109,860 187,720 9.77% 1,709,893 Maintenance 72,240 90,140 17,900 24.78% 126,684 Capital Equipment & Improvement 1,412,550 868,627 (543,923) -38.51% 682,160 NET PROFIT (1,119,930) (550,627) 570,303 50.83% (86,425) Depreciation & Asset Transfer 1,092,550 548,627 (543,923) 409,647 Principle & Interest (23,297) Transfers Out - - - - Change in Working Capital Positive=Profit / Negative=Loss (27,380) (2,000) 570,303 -92.70% 299,925 Capital Equipment & Improvements: Capital Improvements 7th Ave/TH47 Trunk Sewer 521,000 Capital Improvements 2024 SRP Franklin Area 257,000 Capital Improvements HWY 10 Rum River CO#2 81,964 Capital Improvements HWY 10 Rum River CO#31 8,663 Total 868,627 22 of 53 SEWER Finance is proposing to increase the sewer rate as follows: Current Proposed Percent Rates Rates Change Rate per 100 cu.ft. $ 3.52 $ 3.90 10.80% . Fixed Charge: Residential $ 5.25 $ 5.25 0.00% Commercial $ 10.25 $ 10.25 0.00% Industrial $ 149.75 $ 149.75 0.00% Example: Residential (6,000 gallons) Monthly Usage: 572 cu.ft. 572 cu. ft. $ 25.38 $ 27.56 8.56% This represents a 8.6% increase for a resident using 6,000 gallons of water. 23 of 53 STORM Increase / 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Decrease % Difference 2022 Actual Revenues 798,500 852,500 54,000 6.76% 794,153 Operational Costs: Personal Services 53,600 57,800 4,200 7.84% 49,900 Supplies 500 500 - 0.00% - Professional Services 89,210 109,358 20,148 22.58% 25,202 Maintenance 95,400 95,400 - 0.00% 1,460 Capital Equipment & Improvement 1,035,000 1,000,000 (35,000) -3.38% 369,345 NET PROFIT (475,210) (410,558) 64,652 13.60% 348,246 Depreciation & Asset Transfer 880,000 790,000 (90,000) 165,268 Principle & Interest (80,140) (75,800) (77,611) Transfers Out - - - - Change in Working Capital Positive=Profit / Negative=Loss 324,650 303,642 64,652 -6.47% 435,903 Capital Equipment & Improvements: Capital Improvements 2024 SRP Franklin Area 820,000 Capital Improvements John Ward Park Drainage 30,000 Capital Improvements Trunk Storm Sewer Imp 150,000 Total 1,000,000 24 of 53 LIQUOR Increase / 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Decrease % Difference 2022 Actual Revenues 3,269,000 2,191,000 (1,078,000) -32.98% 3,539,291 Cost of Sales 2,542,500 1,397,500 (1,145,000) -45.03% 2,624,529 GROSS PROFIT 726,500 793,500 67,000 9.22% 914,762 Operational Costs: Personal Services 786,940 772,900 (14,040) -1.78% 784,752 Supplies 33,750 12,250 (21,500) -63.70% 10,789 Professional Services 323,240 215,350 (107,890) -33.38% 251,845 Maintenance 23,850 20,650 (3,200) -13.42% 38,706 Capital Equipment & Improvement - 3,500,000 3,500,000 - NET PROFIT (441,280) (3,727,650) (3,286,370) -744.74% (171,330) Depreciation & Asset Transfer (18,000) 3,491,000 3,509,000 (11,526) Transfers Out (40,000) (20,000) 20,000 -50.00% (240,000) Change in Working Capital Positive=Profit / Negative=Loss (499,280) (256,650) 242,630 -48.60% (422,856) Capital Equipment & Improvements: Capital Improvement East Store Relocation 3,500,000 3,500,000 25 of 53 RECYCLING Increase / 2023 Budget 2024 Budget Decrease % Difference 2022 Actual Revenues 458,450 476,300 17,850 3.89% 431,739 Operational Costs: Personal Services 64,690 72,580 7,890 12.20% 61,857 Supplies 6,600 3,100 (3,500) -53.03% 1,698 Professional Services 372,940 364,800 (8,140) -2.18% 347,853 Maintenance 5,730 7,500 1,770 30.89% 7,956 Capital Equipment & Improvement - - - - NET PROFIT 8,490 28,320 16,330 -233.57% 12,375 Transfers Out - - - - Change in Working Capital Positive=Profit / Negative=Loss 8,490 28,320 16,330 233.57% 12,375 26 of 53 27 of 53 28 of 53 29 of 53 30 of 53 31 of 53 32 of 53 33 of 53 34 of 53 35 of 53 36 of 53 37 of 53 38 of 53 39 of 53 40 of 53 41 of 53 42 of 53 43 of 53 44 of 53 45 of 53 46 of 53 47 of 53 48 of 53 49 of 53 50 of 53 51 of 53 52 of 53 53 of 53

Get email alerts for Anoka

A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.

Report an issue with this meeting