The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04.21.25 Work Session CITY OF ST. JOSEPH www.cityofstjoseph.com 75 Callaway Street East | Saint Joseph, Minnesota 56374 Email: cityoffices@cityofstjoseph.com | Phone: 320.363.7201 | Fax 320.363.0342 St. Joseph City Council Work Session April 21, 2025 5:00 PM 1. APO Update – Brian Gibson 2. Petition for Refuse Services 3. Adjourn Beltline Cost- Sharing Agreement A proposal from the Saint Cloud Area Planning Organization 2 What is the Beltline? •A circular arterial roadway that provides more options for getting around the region without the need to travel through the most congested central core 3 Origins •1992 St. Cloud Comprehensive Plan •Reinforced in subsequent comp plans •Reinforced in APO transportation plans 4 Purpose •Roadway continuity •Mobility •Congestion reduction/mitigation •Accommodating growth •10 miles to next bridge •The public consistently requests a roadway to circumnavigate the urban core. 5 Look & Feel •NOT 494/694 •Minor arterial •40-45 mph •Limited access 6 Beltline Impacts Difference -Beltline vs. 2050 MTP Functional Class VMT VHT Delay (veh-hour) Interstates -3,326 -47 -6 Other Freeways & Expressways -1,012 -19 -6 Other Principal Arterials 237,781 5,924 -585 Minor Arterials -158,691 -4575 -463 Collectors -40,417 -1,277 -122 Local Streets -2,558 -158 3 Centroid Connectors -2,083 -80 0 On-Ramps 504 21 4 Off-Ramps -29 17 29 Other Local Streets -6,853 -250 1 Grand Total 23,315 -444 -1,145 LOS B 7 Project Development Steps 1.Planning & Concept Development •Usually the APO’s role is limited to this step 2.Environment Assessment •Detailed review of potential environmental impacts •Final alignment cannot occur until this step has been completed 3.Final Design •Environmental Assessment must be considered 4.Right-of-Way Acquisition 5.Construction •The Search for Big Money 8 Funding Beltline Projects •In 2024, the APO Board set a goal of developing a region- wide agreement on cost-sharing for future beltline projects. •Which part of the project development process would be cost- shared? •How would the cost-sharing be distributed among the APO members? •The APO Board requested that the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) provide a recommendation 9 Funding Beltline Projects •On August 28, 2024, the TAC approved the following recommendations: •The cost of the planning phase of any beltline project should be cost-shared among the jurisdictions according to the normal APO cost distribution formula, as usual •When Federal or State funds are being used for a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the local-match costs should be shared among the jurisdictions, with the implementing jurisdiction paying 50% of the local match, and the other 50% begin distributed among the jurisdictions according to the normal APO cost distribution formula •Tier 2 EISs and all other aspects of the project development process should be the sole responsibility of the implementing jurisdiction 10 Funding Beltline Projects •Tier 1 EIS •A broad analysis of environmental consequences of alternatives. It focuses on general issues like location, air quality, and land use. A Tier 1 EIS provides the foundation for future project-level studies and can move forward without funding for future steps being identified. •Tier 2 EIS •A more detailed environmental review that focuses on specific projects and improvements. It addresses site-specific details like project impacts, costs, and mitigation measures, and usually results in 35% design plans. By the time a Tier 2 EIS is submitted for approval, funding for “meaningful progress” needs to be programmed. 11 TAC Discussion & Considerations •Consideration 1 •City A is developing its portion of the beltline •Cities B, C, and D contribute to a Tier 2 EIS •City A does not move forward with development •Are Cities B, C, and D on the hook to pay back the Feds? •Consideration 2 •Design is a very local decision based on context and land use •City A does not want Cities B, C, and D telling them how to design their facility •Consideration 3 •City A would pay 50% of the local match + its normal share of the other 50% 12 50% 8% 20% 12% 10% Local Match City A City A City B City C City D 13 TAC Recommendations •Planning •Environmental •Tier 1 EIS (Fed $) •Or any other “scoping” work (Fed$) •Tier 1 EIS (Non-Fed $) •Tier 2 EIS •Final Design •Right-of-Way •Construction Regional Individual Cost-Sharing per APO’s normal distribution formula 50% for implementing jurisdiction; 50% per APO’s normal distribution formula (inclusive) •The APO Policy Board approved this agreement on March 13. 14 Bridge & US 10 Connector 15 LOS B Southwest 16 North 17 Northeast E. admin@stcloudapo.org W. stcloudapo.org 1040 County Road 4, Saint Cloud, MN 56303-0643 T. 320.252.7568 F. 320.252.6557 TO: The Governing Bodies of APO Member Jurisdictions FROM: Brian Gibson, Executive Director RE: Cost Sharing for Future Beltline Projects DATE: March 19, 2025 The regional beltline roadway has been part of the vision for the region for the past few decades. As envisioned, the beltline would be a minor arterial surface road with speeds of 40-45 mph. Recently, the city of St. Cloud completely rebuilt 33rd Street South from a rural two-lane roadway to an urban four-lane divided arterial in accordance with the vision for the beltline. It provides a good example of what the future segments of E. admin@stcloudapo.org W. stcloudapo.org the beltline will probably look like once it is fully built-out. In the short-term, some segments may only be two-lane roadways, but right-of- way for four-lane segments should be preserved. Additionally, access to the beltline should be protected to allow traffic to move safely at 40-45 mph. Obviously, development of such a large and expensive concept takes a long time and must be completed incrementally in “bite sized” segments. In the past, the APO Board has largely agreed that because the beltline is a regional facility which will be utilized by everyone, the burden of its development should be shared – at least to some extent – by all of the jurisdictions in the region. Almost all transportation projects go through the same five-step process: 1. Planning 2. Environmental Review 3. Final Design 4. Right-of-Way Acquisition E. admin@stcloudapo.org W. stcloudapo.org 5. Construction For transportation projects that are regional in nature, the APO can and does provide funding for the planning phase of the project. When we do, the cost of the local matching funds is distributed among the APO jurisdictions according to our standard formula, which is a per-capita assessment. For 2025, the percentage share for each jurisdiction looked like this: Jurisdiction Population Percentage Share St. Cloud 71,122 49.17% St. Joseph 7,117 4.92% Sartell 19,606 13.55% Sauk Rapids 13,559 9.37% Waite Park 8,444 5.84% LeSauk Township 1,506 1.04% Benton County 5,091 3.52% Sherburne County 2,618 1.81% Stearns County 15,592 10.78% Total 144,655 100.00% Normally, the APO does not get involved in any step beyond the planning phase. However, given the nature of the Beltline as an interjurisdictional facility and the costs associated with its development the APO can serve as a conduit for further steps. In 2024, the APO Board set a goal to establish a regionwide cost-sharing agreement for future beltline roadway projects. The key questions were: 1. Which step(s) of the project development process would be cost-shared regionally and which step(s) would be the sole responsibility of the jurisdiction constructing the project, and 2. How would the cost sharing be distributed among the APO members? The APO Board asked APO staff to solicit a recommendation from their Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). At its August 28, 2024 meeting, the TAC approved the following recommendations: 1. The cost of the planning phase of any beltline project should be cost-shared among the jurisdictions according to the normal APO cost distribution formula (i.e., per-capita assessment), as usual. 2. When Federal or State funds are being used for a Tier 1 Environmental E. admin@stcloudapo.org W. stcloudapo.org Impact Statement (EIS) or other scoping document, the local-match costs should be shared among the jurisdictions, with the implementing jurisdiction paying 50% of the local match, and the other 50% being distributed among the jurisdictions according to the normal APO cost distribution formula. If Federal or State funds are not used, then the cost of the Tier 1 EIS or scoping document would be paid for solely by the implementing jurisdiction. 3. Tier 2 EISs and all other aspects of project development should be the sole responsibility of the implementing jurisdiction. An important detail included in recommendation 2 (above) is that while the implementing jurisdiction will pay the first 50% of the local match for a Tier 1 EIS, it is not excused from also paying its normal share of the remaining 50%. In other words, if you look at the following hypothetical example: You will notice that City A (i.e., the implementing jurisdiction) is paying the first 50% of the local match (the right side of the pie chart) AND also paying its normal share of the other 50% on the left (8% in this example). Presented graphically, the recommendation would look like this: E. admin@stcloudapo.org W. stcloudapo.org At their October 2024 meeting, the APO Policy Board felt that no decision should be made until after the (then upcoming) elections. At their March 13, 2025 meeting, the Policy Board unanimously endorsed the TAC’s recommendation as shown above. However, the APO Board members know that because this agreement has the potential to impact future budgets of individual jurisdictions, approval of this cost- sharing agreement by each individual jurisdiction is required. And so, the concept is now in front of you for your consideration. The APO respectfully requests your consideration of the attached resolution agreeing to the cost-sharing agreement you see here in this memo. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me: Brian Gibson 320-252-7568 Gibson@stcloudapo.org Approving the Beltline Transportation Project Cost-Sharing Agreement Resolution # WHEREAS; the establishment of a regional beltline roadway corridor has been part of the transportation vision for the region for decades; and WHEREAS; affirmative steps have already been taken to implement the regional beltline vision, including the reconstruction of 33rd Street South in St. Cloud, the construction of an interchange at 33rd Street South and MN-15, and the purchase of right-of-way by Benton County for the beltline corridor; and WHEREAS; full implementation of the regional beltline corridor is expected to have significant positive transportation outcomes for the entire region; and WHEREAS; given the size and scope of this vision, regional cooperation among all affected jurisdictions is imperative to its successful implementation; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the governing body of <<enter jurisdiction name>> approves the following cost-sharing proposal for beltline surface transportation projects until the beltline corridor is fully implemented: 1. The cost of the planning phase of any beltline project shall be cost-shared among the jurisdictions according to the normal St. Cloud Area Planning Organization (APO) cost distribution formula (i.e., per-capita assessment), as usual. 2. When federal or state funds are being used for a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or other scoping document, the local-match costs shall be shared among the jurisdictions, with the implementing jurisdiction paying 50% of the local match, and the other 50% being distributed among the jurisdictions according to the normal APO cost distribution formula. If federal or state funds are not used, then the cost of the Tier 1 EIS or scoping document would be paid for solely by the implementing jurisdiction. 3. Tier 2 EISs and all other aspects of project development should be the sole responsibility of the implementing jurisdiction. Adopted by the <<enter governing body>> <<date of approval>>. Resolution # ATTEST: ________________________ __________________________ _________________________ Date ____________________________ Date STAFF MEMO Prepared by: City Administrator Meeting Date: 04/21/2024 ☐ Consent Agenda Item ☒ Regular Agenda Item Agenda Item # Work Session Reviewed by: Finance Director Item: Kiwi & Kale Court Refuse Petition ACTION REQUESTED Discussion and Direction from Council. BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION N/A. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION N/A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Currently Kiwi and Kale Court are not a part of the City’s refuse collection, nor do they participate in the stormwater fund and street lighting fund. This area was annexed in 2019. The annexation agreement specifically excluded refuse/recycling and water/sewer (until available in their area). The agreement was silent on stormwater and street lighting. The implementation of the stormwater, streetlighting and refuse for all rural residential properties was proposed in October 2023 and was met with strong resistance and a packed Council Chambers. 15 residents of Kiwi and Kale Court have signed a petition titled “Join City of St. Joseph Refuse Program”. They are requesting to be a part of the refuse collection, but it does not mention the other city fees billed every other month, specifically stormwater and street lighting. Currently there is not a provision for just one portion of the services provided, however the Council could create one. I am looking for feedback from the Council on whether this is something the Council is willing to entertain before staff invest much time into it. The request raises some questions I would like to discuss with Council, particularly if the Council is amenable to the idea of allowing residents to participate in some of the City fees, but not all and if this is offered to Kiwi & Kale Court, should it be offered to the rest of the rural residential properties that were annexed in. BUDGET IMPACT Undetermined at this time. Refuse fees are a pass through. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION My recommendation is if the Council were to consider amending to allow only a portion of the City’s residential fees to be charged, it would set a precedent that would most likely need to be extended to all rural residential properties. Also, it is generally not advisable to have differing structures in a City. SUPPORTING DATA/ATTACHMENTS Petition City’s fee schedule Fee Taxable (Y/N)Charge Basis Rates Conditions & Requirements Late Fee %10%Minimum $10.00 Late Fee, balances >=$5.00 Refuse/Recycling Recycling Cart 60 gal N Per Cart/Per Bill 12.00 Per Cart Recycling Cart 90 gal N Per Cart/Per Bill 17.00 Per Cart Extra Recycling Cart N Per Cart/Per Bill 17.00 Per Cart 30 Gallon Refuse Y Per Cart/Per Bill 34.50 Per Cart 60 Gallon Refuse Y Per Cart/Per Bill 37.50 Per Cart 90 Gallon Refuse Y Per Cart/Per Bill 43.50 Per Cart 2nd Refuse Cart Y Per Cart/Per Bill 18.50 Per Cart Solid Waste Management Tax 9.75%Tax on All Refuse Charges Round-Up Program N Voluntary Contribution Varies Round-Up Utility Bill to nearest $1.00 to help improve City Parks Sewer Fixed Charge 3/4" and 5/8" Meter N Per Base Meter Size 42.00 AWWA Equivalency Factor Fixed Charge 1" Meter N Per Base Meter Size 105.00 AWWA Equivalency Factor Fixed Charge 1.5" Meter N Per Base Meter Size 210.00 AWWA Equivalency Factor Fixed Charge 2" Meter N Per Base Meter Size 336.00 AWWA Equivalency Factor | Compound Meters only charged on low side meter Fixed Charge 3" Meter N Per Base Meter Size 630.00 AWWA Equivalency Factor | Compound Meters only charged on low side meter Fixed Charge 4" Meter N Per Base Meter Size 1,050.00 AWWA Equivalency Factor | Compound Meters only charged on low side meter Fixed Charge 6" Meter N Per Base Meter Size 2,100.00 AWWA Equivalency Factor | Compound Meters only charged on low side meter Sewer Usage N Per 1,000 Gallons 6.93 Winter Averaging for Residential Users per City Ordinance 603 Contract User N Per Unit/Per Bill 42.00 Fixed Charge Unit Calculated based upon Sewer Gallons Treated Storm Water Single Family Dwelling N Per Unit/Per Bill 14.00 Per Unit Duplex Residential Dwelling N Per Unit/Per Bill 14.00 Per Unit Multi Family Dwelling (Non-Duplex)N Per Billable Acre 38.08 Billed Per Acre/Per Bill Commercial N Per Billable Acre 59.22 Billed Per Acre/Per Bill Industrial N Per Billable Acre 46.20 Billed Per Acre/Per Bill Institutional N Per Billable Acre 46.20 Billed Per Acre/Per Bill Minimum Charge N Per Bill 14.00 Agriculture N No Charge - Public Facility N No Charge - UTILITY RATES *Rates Charged per Bi-Monthly Bill Cycle unless Noted Otherwise* Fee Taxable (Y/N)Charge Basis Rates Conditions & Requirements UTILITY RATES *Rates Charged per Bi-Monthly Bill Cycle unless Noted Otherwise* Street Light Utility Residential - Urban N Per Unit/Per Bill 4.80 See Ordinance for How to Calculate Commercial/Industrial N Per Unit/Per Bill 4.80 See Ordinance for How to Calculate Mixed Use Facility N Per Unit/Per Bill 4.80 See Ordinance for How to Calculate Educational & Ecclesiastic Zoned Properties N Per Unit/Per Bill 3.20 See Ordinance for How to Calculate Water Water Head Cellular Read Phone App Access N Per Month - as available on cellular meter read head accounts - City covering cost Fixed Charge 3/4" and 5/8" Meter **Per Base Meter Size 25.60 AWWA Equivalency Factor Fixed Charge 1" Meter **Per Base Meter Size 64.00 AWWA Equivalency Factor Fixed Charge 1.5" Meter **Per Base Meter Size 128.00 AWWA Equivalency Factor Fixed Charge 2" Meter **Per Base Meter Size 204.80 AWWA Equivalency Factor | Compound Meters only charged on one side Fixed Charge 3" Meter **Per Base Meter Size 384.00 AWWA Equivalency Factor | Compound Meters only charged on one side Fixed Charge 4" Meter **Per Base Meter Size 640.00 AWWA Equivalency Factor | Compound Meters only charged on one side Fixed Charge 6" Meter **Per Base Meter Size 1,280.00 AWWA Equivalency Factor | Compound Meters only charged on one side Water Usage **Per 1,000 Gallons 5.59 **Taxable for Non-Residential Users Sprinkler Usage **Per 1,000 Gallons 6.25 **Taxable for Non-Residential Users Sprinkler Fixed Charge **Per Base Meter Size 25.60 **Taxable for Non-Residential Users MDS Test Fee N Per Account 1.62