The URL can be used to link to this page

2005-07-01 Friday NewsHOUSE FIRE On Monday night of this week about 8 p.m. the Fire Department was called into action for a house fire at 1745 Lansford Lane. It was a stormy night, and lightening had struck a willow tree and the nearby home, starting a fire in the roof. The homeowner heard and felt the strike, but did not realize that it had started a fire. Fortunately, his neighbor across the street saw it and called 911. About 30 Mendota Heights, 10 Inver Grove Heights and 12 Eagan Fire Fighters worked hard to put out the blaze. They were able to keep the fire in the roof and had it under control about 10 p.m. The Firefighters tried their best to cover, and protect the contents of the home, however, there was still significant water damage from fighting the fire and the rain. The fire after it was put out, kept smoldering, and our firefighters had to return to the scene four times on Tuesday to douse it some more. Much credit goes out to all our fire fighters for doing an extremely professional job in fighting this fire under pouring rain and high heat and humidity conditions and to their spouses who joined in the effort by bringing them food and drink during the night. North Urban Regional Trail The Minnesota Department of Transportation has notified Dakota County and the City that the alignment of the proposed Dakota County trail along the north side of Hwy 110 from Dodd Road to Delaware will not be approved due to concerns for safety and storm water storage. Last year, following Council, Park Commission and neighborhood meetings, the County began final design plans for the trail to be located between the north frontage road and the west bound lanes of Hwy. 110. MnDOT considers this location to be too close (16/18 ft of separation) and unsafe. MnDOT has indicated they will only approve a "Limited Use Permit" for this trail segment if it is located north of the frontage road between Oak Street and Warrior Drive. Without MnDOT approvals the County will not be able to begin this project before September 1St of this year and the funding grant for this project will be lost. To restart a trail project to fill this gap in the North Urban Regional Trail system would mean the project must be re -designed, an acceptable trail alignment found and submitted for approvals to the County Board and Met Council before a future grant application could be applied for. County said that the best scenario would be five to ten years out. This issue will be on the July 5th Council agenda for discussion and also on the July 12th Park Commission agenda. The County will notify and invite the Freeway Road neighborhood to attend the Park Commission meeting to discuss the north side alignment. At the July 19th Council meeting a resolution to either approve locating the trail north of the frontage road or to terminate the project will be an agenda item. OPUS APPROVED The Mayor called a special meeting of the City Council for 5: 30 p.m. on Wednesday of this week to consider an amended plan from OPUS Corporation for the Ecolab site. At the last City Council meeting several members of the City Council still had problems with the mass of the westerly condo building and approval for the project was tabled. The westerly condo building was blocking the view of the existing homes along their southerly property line. The Mayor called the special meeting because OPUS had amended their plan to have only one, four story, 48 -unit masonry building that was to be no taller than one of the three story wood frame structures with a shed roof (about 50 feet). OPUS also added some town homes in the space left by the westerly condominium. Their total density has now been reduced to 110 units. The press and all the neighbors had been notified of the meeting. After a presentation by OPUS and questions from the City Council and audience, the City Council voted unanimously to approve the project. 4' OF JULY Next Monday will be the 4th of July, and City offices will be closed. Many staff members are also taking Friday off, so Friday will be quiet around City Hall. For those of you who will be in town— don't forget to go see the fireworks at Mendakota,. Respectfully submitted, Jim Danielson City Administrator Attachments: Just the Facts, Pipeline, City Council Meeting Agenda, Pre -Application Meeting Synopsis, Lillie Suburban (Southwest Review) Article "MH may get specialty grocery store" and "MH and WSP police to step up enforcement" and "Sibley sign would benefit many" Twincities.com Article "Condos' size is a concern", Committee votes to close 29 bus routes, Sun Newspaper Article "Local volunteers look after wetlands in Mendota Heights", Traffic Safety Project Briefing, Big Rivers Regional Trail Residential Survey Report and Friday Fax. Issue # 06-23 June 30, 2005 11J44TAF 4Th of July Fireworks Safety Remember the general rule as to the legality of a firework in MN is: If leaves the ground or goes bang it is illegal. For a listing of common fireworks and whether or not they are legal go to this website: http://www.fire.state. mn. us/Fireworks/FireworksEnforcementi nfo. pdf The MN State Fire Marshall's Office surveys hospitals the week after, the 4th of July each year in 2004 there were 111 injuries that required a trip to the hospital. Fire departments around MN listed fireworks as the cause of fires with a total loss of $610,000.00 in 2004. Fireworks are legal and can be used in a safe manner. For more information please go to this website: hftp://www.fir-e.state.mn.us/Fir-ewor,ks/ConsumerFireworks.htmI Please have a safe 4th of July. Dakota County Traffic Safety Committee / Safe & Sober Up to 22 Officers will be working Hwy 13, 35E and Hwy 110 looking for drunk and impaired drivers on July 2nd from 2200 to 0200 hours. 'The Officers will be from all around Dakota working to make it safer to drive in Dakota County. This is being done in conjunction with the current Safe and Sober wave all around the US. Remember that the legal BAC concentration will be moving down to the .08 standard starting the 1St of August. 06/15/05 Theft 1244 hours Officer Jenny Hurst responded to Brown College to talk to the complainant regarding a theft. The complainant stated that she had left her laptop computer in the cafeteria when she went out on the deck with a friend. She stated she was only gone about ten minutes and upon her return, found that someone had taken the laptop computer„ There are no witnesses/suspects at this time.. Referred to Investigations.. 06/16/05 Wildlife Assist 2039 hours Officer Todd Rosse responded to 1500 Commerce concerning some ducklings trapped in a storm sewer. When he arrived, he could hear the ducklings inside the sewer but could not retrieve them. Per the comp, the mother was nearby.. The area was cleared so the mother would return and retrieve her babies.. -1- Issue # 06-23 June 30, 2005 06/18/05 Suspicious Circumstances 1536 hours Neighbors in the 1700 block of Lilac Lane reported that a garage door had been left open, which was believed to be suspicious. They reported that the homeowners go to a cabin on weekends, but would not leave their garage door open. Officer Hurst arrived and found the door from the garage to the inside of the house was unsecured. The residence was checked and found to be clear with no signs of intrusion. The residence was secured. 06/22/05 Fight/Disorderly Conduct 0150 hours While on routine patrol, Officer Eric Petersen observed several males, including staff from a local business, engaged in a physical altercation just outside the front doors. The parties were separated and four were issued citations for disorderly conduct,. The parties were then released to sober drivers.. 06/24/05 Suspicious Vehicle 0930 hours Sgt. Donn Anderson was dispatched to the area of Sylvandale Road concerning a suspicious vehicle parked in the area. The complainant reported that the driver was "watching" her as she was checking her neighbor's house, which is for sale. The vehicle and driver were later located and it was determined that he was from St. Paul Water. He provided all necessary documentation. 06/25/05 Burglary 1318 hours Sergeant Neil Garlock was dispatched to a residence in the 1600 block of James Road. The resident reported that someone had entered their garage during the night and taken a miniature electric motorcycle. At 0130 hours, she noticed the garage door open and closed it, and later that morning, found the motorcycle missing. She also discovered that some vanilla ice cream had been taken from the freezer. 06/27105 Residential Fire 1949 hours Officers were dispatched to the 1700 block of Lansford Lane on report of a residential fire. Prior to their arrival, dispatch verified that all residents had exited the home and had not been injured. On scene, flames and smoke were visible from the northern roof section. Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights and Eagan Fire Departments extinguished the fire after several hours. It was determined that the fire started when lightning struck a willow tree and roof on the northern side of the residence. 06128/053 rd Degree Burglary 1125 hours While checking the west side of Diamond Jim's Mall on report of a burglary, Officer Hurst observed the back door to the New York China Restaurant had been pried open. She entered the business and saw that the cash register had been opened and the contents, as well as contents on the desk, had been thrown on the floor. As the business had not yet opened, she later returned to gather information and find out what had been taken. It was reported that approximately #350 in cash had been stolen, as well as other misc.. items. Referred to Investigations. Have a safe 4tn of July! /fes O Public Works: The Parks Crew repaired a sprinkler head at Mendakota Park. They trimmed trees along the pedway in Valley Park for easier walking. Timbers were removed and filled in at the Marie Park were new playground equipment was installed. A second application of crabgrass preventive was put down at Kensington Park South, Mendakota Park, the Fire Hall, City Hall, the ballfields at City Hall and at the Public Works Garage. After Wednesday nights storms blew threw the Parks Crew picked up downed braches. Rich cleaned sewers in all of the Park Place neighborhood and the Farmdale easement. He raised a manhole 1-1/2 feet on the Farmdale easement. The alarm went off at the Mendota Heights Road lift station on Tuesday at 10:30 a.m. due to high water. Rich washed down the walls and cleaned up the wet well at the Mendota Heights Road lift station. Tim Oster from the Street Crew was called in on Monday night to remove a tree in the roadway that blew over from the storm and it was then cut and chipped up. The Street Crew met with the Police Chief and the Maintenance Chief of Brown College to discuss a crosswalk on Northland Drive After the discussion, it was decided not to paint the crosswalk now and to paint it when Northland Drive is milled and overlaid. "No Par -king" signs were installed at Brown College. Storm sewer grates were cleaned. For the second time this week, the Street Crew also had to pick up downed tree limbs after the storm Wednesday night. Engineering_ Paving in the Somerset neighborhood began on Thursday. It is the contractor's intent to have all of the streets "black" by the end of the day on Friday. Sue and Guy attended a meeting with Dakota County and MnDOT at which they learned that MnDOT will not allow the NURT to be located between TH 110 and the TH 110 frontage road. Marie Park: Improvements to the Marie Park playground were completed last week. Work included removal of CCA treated border edging, removal of pea rock surfacing and removal of play structure and accessories installed in 1990. Some of the removed components that are in good shape will be reconditioned and re -installed, with additional new components, at the Valley View Heights Park in 2006. The upgrades at the Marie playground include a new structure and play components suitable for 5 year and older youth, new non-toxic composite edging timbers, and non-toxic shredded wood surfacing that once compacted will make the entire play are in conformance with the American with Disabilities Act. Work on similar upgrade improvements will begin at Wentworth Park following the July 4th Holiday. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA July 5, 2005 — 7:30 P.M. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3 Pledge of Allegiance. 4. Agenda Adoption 5. Approval of the June 7th & 29tH 2005 City Council Minutes.. & Consent Calendar a. Acknowledgement of the June 28, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes. b. Acknowledgement of the June Building Activity Report. c. Approval of Reschedule Meeting Time.. d. Approval of Reschedule Meeting Date and Religious Observances. e. Approval of Appointment of New Police Officer. f.. Approval of Exterior Door Change, 1200 Mendota Heights Road Super America„ g. Approval of Sign Permit for Enterprise Dental, 2418 Enterprise Drive„ h. Approval of Escrow for the Summit of Mendota Heights. i„ Adoption of Resolution No. 05- "RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE NEED FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS". j.. Adoption of Resolution No. 05- : "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR TEMPORARY SIGNAGE FOR A MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT AT 820/840 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY". k,. Adoption of Resolution No. 05- : "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PUD PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND VARIANCE FOR AN OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AT NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF 494 AND 35E". I, Approval of Contractor List m Approval of List of Claims 7. Public Comments 8.. Presentation Relay,for Life Proclamation HLB Tautges Redpath 9.. Hearings a. Wine Market - Continued b. Partial Vacation of Cheri Lane, Resolution No. 05 - "RESOLUTION APPROVING A PARTIAL VACATION OF CHERI LANE". 10. Unfinished and New Business a. Case No. 05-23: Troy and Debra Davison, 1301 Delaware Avenue — Conditional Use Permit for a Detached Garage. Resolution No. 05- : "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE AT 1301 DELAWARE AVENUE". b. Case No. 05-24: Brian and Andrea Crosby, 2276 Apache Street — Conditional Use Permit for a 42" High Silver Chain Link Fence, Resolution No. 05- : "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A DONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 42" HIGH SILVER CHAIN LINK FENCE AT 2276 APACHE STREET". c. Case No. 05-25: Cori Johnson, 1732 Vicki Lane — Conditional Use Permit for a Five Foot High Black Chain Link Fence. Resolution No. 05- "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FIVE FOOT HIGH BLACK CHAIN LINK FENCE AT 1732 VICKI LANE". d. Case No. 05-26: Jason Hinchliff, 1155 Dodd Road — Seven Foot Front Yard Setback Variance for a Ten Foot Deep Open Front Porch.. Resolution No. 05- : "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SEVEN FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A TEN FOOT DEEP OPEN FRONT PORCH AT 1155 DODD ROAD". e. Case No. 05-27: Patrick Hickey, 2303 Swan Drive — Wetlands Permit to Encroach 60 feet into the Wetlands Buffer for a Distance of 40 Feet from the Wetland and 30 Foot Side Yard Setback Variance for a Home Addition.. Resolution No. 05- • "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT TO ENCROACH 60 FEET INTO THE WETLANDS BUFFER FOR A DISTANCE OF 40 FEET FROM THE WETLAND AND DENYING A 30 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A HOME ADDITION AT 2303 SWAN DRIVE". Case No. 05-28: Beda Lewis, Saint Paul's United Methodist Church, 700 Wesley Lane — 28 Foot Size Variance and 29 Foot Setback Variance for a Monument Sign. Resolution No. 05- : "A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FOR SIZE AND SETBACK FOR SIGNAGE AT SAINT PAUL'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH AT 700 WESLEY LANE". g. Discussion of Dakota County North Urban Regional Trail. h. Discussion of Workshop Meeting.. 11, Council Comments 12. Adiourn Auxiliary aids forepersons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 452-1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 29, 2005 TO: City Council, Commission Members, and City Administr i FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Pre -Application Meeting Synopsis Staff met with eight potential applicants on Monday, June 27, 2005. Steve Grittman, Sue McDermott and Patrick Hollister were present. Larry Coleman, Nextel City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve (Mr. Kullander and Chief Aschenbrener joined us for this discussion.) Mr. Coleman met with Staff to discuss his proposal for a wireless communications antenna behind City Hall. Mr. Coleman is proposing to replace the Police Department's antenna tower with a new taller tower and co -locate his antenna with the Police antenna. Mr. Coleman had already met with the Council at their last meeting for a preliminary discussion of this idea. Staff determined that Mr. Coleman's proposal would require an application for a Conditional Use Permit, a variance for height, and possibly a variance to the requirement that antenna be co -located on an existing pole in the R-1 zone. (As part of his Planner's report, Mr. Grittman will offer an opinion as to whether on not Nextel's replacement of an existing pole qualifies under this provision.) Mr. Coleman intends to apply in time for the August 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Steve Dunn, Machinists' Union 2510 Lexington Avenue South Mr. Dunn had received a notice for the Code Enforcement Office that the Machinists' Union had an exposed dumpster in their parking lot which is required to be screened by our ordinance. The Code Enforcement Officer asked Mr. Dunn to meet with Planning Staff to discuss options for bringing the dumpster into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Dunn suggested two possibilities: either building an enclosure for the dumpster, or replacing the dumpster with two smaller garbage cans and screening the cans with a fence. Mr. Grittman said that either option would conform to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Dunn said that he would confer with his supervisor and decide on an option. Dr. Matt and Mrs. Rayna Sturmer, Parkview Cat Clinic, Diamond Jim's, Lilydale Dr. Sturmer met with Staff to discuss the possibility of relocating his Cat Clinic to one of the new residential style -office buildings on the east side of Lexington Avenue north of Mendota Heights Road. Staff reviewed the zoning ordinance and determined that such a use would not be allowed din the B-1 zone. Staff said that relocating to this property would require an amendment to the B-1 zone, and recommended that Dr. Sturmer meet with the Council for a preliminary discussion before submitting a formal planning application,. Dr. Sturmer said that he would provide the City with a letter by July 11 for the July 19 Council agenda. Pastor Jan Morrey and Bill Geydeson Saint Paul's United Methodist Church, 700 Wesley Lane Pastor Morrey and Mr. Geydeson met with Staff to discuss the possibility of subdividing a single-family lot from the east end of the church property. Pastor Morrey and Mr. Geydesen showed Staff a plat map indicating that it would be possible to subdivide a lot from the property that met the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Pastor Morrey and Mr. Geydesen also said that they would like to retain enough land east of their parking lot for snow storage. Staff asked Pastor Morrey and Mr. Geydesen to have a surveyor draw a proposed lot and visit with us again before submitting a formal subdivision application. Mike Coonan, 2237 Apache Street Mr. Coonan had received a letter from the Code Enforcement Office informing him that his 2.5 -foot -long trailer was illegally parked in a side yard. Mr. Coonan was instructed by the Code Enforcement Officer to either bring the trailer into conformance with the ordinance or meet with Planning Staff to apply for a variance to the parking regulations. Mr. Coonan said that he preferred to do the latter. Staff provided Mr. Coonan with the appropriate materials for a variance application. Staff told Mr. Coonan that his application was unlikely to be approved. Mr. Coonan intends to apply in time for the July 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Charlie Melcher, Moen-Leuer Construction 494 and 35E Mohagen-Hanson Architects, on behalf of Moen-Leuer Construction, had recently received Preliminary Plat approval and Preliminary Development Plan approval for a Planned Unit Development for Town Offices at the northeast corner of 494 and 35E. Mr. Melcher met with the Council at their last meeting to request more time to prepare the Final Development Plan and Final Plat for Council approval.. Mr. Melcher asked for a time extension until October 1, 2005, which the Council denied. Mr. Melcher now plans to re -submit his Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Development Plan application to Council for their July 5 meeting in hopes that they will approve it a second time, thereby restarting the clock for Final Plat and Final Development Plan approval, Paul Plum, 1933 Dodd Road Mr. Plum met with Staff to discuss his plans for a storage shed. The shed would be larger than 144 square feet, requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Plum has an attached garage and said that the shed would not serve as a garage. Staff provided Mr. Plum with the appropriate materials for a CUP application. Mr. Plum intends to apply in time for the July 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Shawn Foley, 2237 Bent Tree Lane Mr. Foley met with Staff to discuss his and his wife's plans for a pool in their back yard. Staff determined that this pool would require a wetlands permit. Mr. Foley said that he would meet with Staff again when he had more defined plans for the pool. Council rejects draft Ecolab condo plan Seth Loy news editor It's something Mendota Heights residents have always wanted — a quality grocery store within the city. And if things go according to plan, they may get thein wish.. In February, city officials autho- rized a market study on the possibil- ity of such a store in Town Center (otherwise known as The Village at Mendota Heights), at the corner of Highway 110 and Dodd Road At last Monday's City Council meeting, Bob Kowalski — of Kowal- Store... rATq M ii, =$ ski's Market fame — helped present the findings of the study, which shows a strong demand for a small- scale, specialty grocery store with a deli. "I personally have been involved in [this] project for the last three months, almost every day" Kowalski said "We'll continue to take it to the next level, which is seeking investors., That's the point we're at now. We need to get an architect involved." Kowalski and his wife are already involved in another development at Town Center — a wine store, He may or may not be involved in the grocery store project, he said, but offered to be a consultant on the pro- ject if nothing else. continued from page 1 able to see how this store will stretch out in a competitive market., There's not a great deal of market growth, but the residential maturity is there." Ecolab townhomes denied In other business, the City Council narrowly rejected a Part of his hesitation is due to the fact that Paster Enterprises, owner of the strip mall across the street, is reportedly looking for a grocery store investor. Kowalski emphasized that the store would not be affiliated with his family's grocery store chain — Kowalski Family Market.. The build- ing also would be much smaller in size than a full-scale grocery store. "I'm really pleased to see it," Council Member Sandra Krebsbach said of the study.. "So many resi- dents, at least the constituents I've talked to over the last 20 years, have wanted to see [a grocery store] come in.,, The other closest grocery/conve- nience stores are RC Dicks to the townhome/condominium plan for the Ecolab site at Highway 13 and Wachtier. At previous meetings, neigh- bors complained about the proposed size of two 36 -unit condominium buildings at the site. Council members Sandra Krebsbach and Ultan Dug- gan voted against the plan, and Mayor John Huber (who lives near the site) abstained north, or those along Robert Street and in Sunfish Lake, Council Member Jack Vitelli won- dered if the store would be a success ful venture, considering that a previ- ous study showed a full-scale grocery store wouldn't be, "Is it a viable business operation at that site?" he asked. "That's a key question to the city — is it viable?" Kowalski said that the study shows a smaller -format store serving residents within a one -mile radius who don't want to make the longer trek to Robert Street — would be viable. "The market is pretty defined to begin with," Kowalski said. "We'll be see Store on page 5 Sunday. June 26. 2005 Paae 5 from voting. Currently, the site holds two three-story office build- ings. Ecolab is in the process of transferring about 350 employees to a facility in Eagan. Dave Menke, a company representative, indicated Ecolab may come back with a revised proposal at the next City Council meeting. One suggestion of'f'ered Tuesday was to knock a floor offthe proposed condominium building's, so they aren't as imposing "My personal feeling is that we're awfully close to what is a project that I can support, and I think that we've worked at it real hard," said Huber, whose front yard overlooks the Eco- lab property. w � pi c/ -)p 'O ti :3 U C 'o c -a,7, O w w do ca 43 E w H o ca m N Qca C ca a WU W N Lei ® N OH ~ � N N _ ca. N H O O H , . O '00 to O +U+ H . k O N o O if} O 4 y ca o � P, P, no y x ° 0 cqb,. d o ItzQ d NclA d q•o� v x N -bq w CU a.)p H rn V]- �.. C'+ b A Q m w �, cu ODca D, Y co 80 0 w m uElli Q)Q Q Ho F+ H F+ Com. Qj ca E N W .. wCL a N H rfi p"d O d °. bb w O 0. d° �'o, vim o cd C'-' _x..� > W O ?✓ ' � OU B± Q) C4f),fr' .-r rn p CO .�"W ( w O ;.4'� 0O 0 �'-� ° c �O y O Abp w �" O 0 Cd CD ho 0 CZ txO bn a) bb 00"si rAO d 0 rd o .b�y O4' �cd►~�C dU��O cd � ^j cd �+ G� C40 00 Cd •d p �v to d p .,..+ o �,.�'".� p U O U •cd ++ CD 0C) Q) C�. to rn •d w cd >14 - o w U O .U) N US"te->, "d .:,irn a) d .Q y. 3 >1 . 1 .W �b.0�) O o 4 O 0U) O o O � Oto Ua) o : y^1 54 t]p L~ cd z.. t; O o ��. cd 5 U N O d cd p51 y O cd o U U C b~ L'+ 0 d M E- 9 r•i o::4ox Ivo cdw A � ^� 0b -d W)"�,a� CO 4 CD 0 Cd w4 CL) oy CZ o cd o --,0 (,4, 9: 3: -• 4 o o p 5... y d .--a o �'+ ..-' .--r w y 'ted L~ � cd ct4 y +' O ,�� 'n CZ C) o M+' j p>, m M cd o .- a) I CD vl � � � y sem, U 4, y� •.� a� p a� � a� o "N o— cd CZ c r+r d ++ a - QC)�oO p Id 42' � i �UP4 cd m (n mxO cd : > 41 � G �O U') C=) D•;>, (L) (2) +' U) +1 bD cd >1r ' 'd>1 O S .' +� O E"t r+mo o w&a a�04"00u UUbncns� It'll 0 �x S-4 � W s v 0Go W 5 o WWW X41 Q,�O�w�cva�dao~o-o cd s ++ w w P4 P . ,cn Con CO �4'd cd O +�++ U .- O 3". � 'Li O S- y + D, cd S¢+ U ctf O .r Co A cd LO cd Zd CD a)d O a� c0 c6 ba , S". " --+ � � �• d � o w 41 9--o w°� O. d... O ,r cd o d U W CO .,.y O ,i." U ++ ++ r7 cn 4 , cd P 'd W U O1 O. cd cd ,Q O ..� bA..ti %' D� O (n a) A .,.., .'r U) •r+ „r cd .-••� CA �"'-• Sl+ cd O O bD44 bl0 wo�Z Lo `z o cd C'-4 .n o cts ho 0,040 14 04 o 1bn � u "d . 0 (n cd +� •ti�+ °y°o z�oa)0two 0..� 0In U�4 o �� U N y a' CO `: a�i'Cd+ cd °p'moi �~ cdo�cz cn � � noon o��°CO cd . ai �+w°Aaacy �oon`vddiccz0..0 �'iofs oN E�� w 3 .� J Condos' size is a concern Posted on Wed, Jun. 29, 2005 Condos' size is a concern Proposal for Ecolab site likely to be decided tonight BY CHING LO Pioneer Press Page 1 of 1 The Mendota Heights City Council is expected to decide whether to allow a multifamily -housing development for the former Ecolab site after expressing concern about the height of a condominium last week„ Opus Corp. is proposing to build 114 new homes in the 800 block of Sibley Memorial Highway near Wachtler Avenue. The 25 -acre site is being eyed for 54 town houses and 60 condominiums in two three-story buildings. In answer to concerns raised by the council at a meeting earlier this month, including the "massiveness" of the two condominium buildings, Opus modified its proposal by changing the roof designs to make the buildings appear lower. "We are giving it our, best effort to get the best idea and development for Mendota Heights," Mayor John Huber said. Even though Opus has revised its plans to satisfy the City C'ouncil's earlier concerns, Council Member Ultan Duggan was still bothered by the size of the buildings.. Duggan asked Opus to take one floor off one of the buildings and add more town houses. As of now, that condominium building stands at about 51 feet with three stories, said Council Member Sandra Krebsbach. That makes it about 20 feet higher than the existing Ecolab buildings on that site, she said., "Opus won't change the structure of (the condominium) because they are saying they won't profit with a smaller building," she said,. Gary Sachs, who lives on Cherry Hill Road behind the proposed site, said, "I don't like the big building in my back yard, but they don't want to listen to what we have to say. They just want to build what they want to build." Sachs had presented a petition opposing the condominium portion of the plan signed by 64 people to the city's planning commission. "They are looking for money, and we are looking at the long-term effect," Sachs said. Krebsbach said the council has not discussed other possibilities for the site, but the housing proposal "just might not be the best idea for this site." However, if the council approves the plan, Opus will break ground in September, on what it is calling the Summit of Mendota Heights. The first units would be available in June 2006. Opus officials expect the new town houses in the development to be priced between $550,000 and $700,000 and the new condominiums between $300,000 and $500,000. Ching Lo can be reached at clo@pioneerpress.com or, 651-228-5435. © 2005 St. Paul Pioneer Press and wire service sources, All Rights Reserved, http://www twincities com http://www.twincities.com/mldltwincitieslnews/local/stateslminnesotalcountiesldakota1120... 6/29/2005 4D F TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2005 ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS TWIN CITIES METRO TRANSIT Metropolitan Council likely to approve cuts, with more possible BY CHARLES LASZEWSKI Pioneer Press Metro Transit bus service will end on 29 routes starting Sept 10, an improvement over an earlier plan to cut 45 routes, a Metropolitan Council commit- tee decided Monday. However, cuts beyond Mon- day's action could be approved in August if the Legislature and Gov, Tim Pawlenty don't come through with at least a few more million dollars, said Brian Lamb, Metro Transit's general manager. Bus -service cuts were revised based on public feed- back from last spring. Monday's committee vote for the latest plan was unanimous by the nine members of the Transportation Committee, and it is all but certain that the full council will give final approval Wednesday. "This is not what we want to do," said Mary Hill Smith, com- mittee clfairwoman. "Our plan was for a 50 percent increase in ridership by 2020, so this is a definite step backwards.." Council members must close a $60 million gap over the next two years.. The deficit is due to fewer automobile sales than expected and a resulting decline in revenue from the state's Motor Vehicle Sales Tax, which provides much of the financing for the metropolitan area's bus lines. The council already passed a 25 -cent fare increase, issued $7.8 million in short-term bonds, received significantly lower bids from companies run- ning the Metro Mobility service for the disabled and has saved nearly $500,000 so far this year, Lamb said. The approved plan will net an additional $8.6 million in sav- ings over the next two years. Regular route service hours will be down 3..5 percent and cost the system a projected 1.6 m;6011 rides over the next two years.. The routes cut were those with the lowest ridership and highest subsidies. Such routes always have been the first to get cut, Hill Smith saidh1 the past, however, money saved was diverted to boosting other routes rather than plugging a deficit, she said.. In addition, 58 bus drivers and 16 mechanics will lose their jobs under the plan, although it is not clear how many will have to be laid off. For months, offi- cials have kept positions open as people leave with the hopes of absorbing ,jobs through attri- tion, Lamb said. Charles Laszewski can be reached at claszewski@pioneer press com or 651-228-5458 L C d °v (a V Y Cl)oE c E a> F°To �m o a_�ia>B T $ LU C C EM M O a � 00 oV d L i O N e E c > 2 L cn i N O V � O R � !� d (D V E E E cc � ®� ua 7a$ oA 4-a CU a E2 � a 3 z U3 co cq a� c� QI E A d F O N ;-+ O O C/) V � 4 i " O O g i cn w .m o cd O E+ +� .� f-1 .� d �� yx� �� 0 O ' `z � o "� ani P4 4.1 0 +1 2�� z� a> S 0w y y s+ 0 cd d U cd o cn O s a r , O cd + �r v s a x� o .� o m �a 0 ai cd cd O'd �+' 3 o 0 t0+ (men �� cd cd cd amicz a)fY� m to + mai 0 a� CL) A 4 cz bp CL) to C E S4 cd is - o a� cd � a)' � � +� 0 � an as,� 0 � o � 0 0 0 o ;-4 o PW El 441 CJ c> c6 cd " 0 - ' tw � + � +U% �- "d cd � June 22, 2005 Volume 1, Issue 1 oject Executive Briefing A publication of the Dakota County Traffic Safety Group for the Dakota County Traffic Safety Project Participating Agencies and Committee Representatives Ap E VALLEY POLICE June Enforcement v . n Participating agencies held the first enforcement event on .June l lth.. The event focused on DUI enforcement in the area of Highways 55, 110 and 52. The date and location targeted graduation season student parties and impaired driving. Fifteen officers participated in this kickoff event, stopping a total of 155 vehicles and issuing 58 citations. Officers took thirteen violators into custody during the enforcement effort Officers made arrests or issued citations for the following offenses: DWI = 5 DAR/DAS/DAC = 13 Drugs = 2 Open Bottle = 2 Minor Consumption = 1 No Insurance Proof = 7 No DL = 3 Speed = 22 Semaphore/Sign = 1 Seat Belts = 2 Reckless Driving = 2 Curfew = 4 Other Tags= 14 ennttee Expansion The Dakota County Traffic Safety Project started a year ago in .July as a concept to address alcohol-related fatal and serious injury crashes in Dakota County. To this point a committee of five officers from five different agencies put a face to the plan and presented the information to the Dakota County Sheriff and Chiefs of Police This original committee also worked on the mutual agreement and saw through the development of the Traffic Safety Project concept to the first enforcement event. As the Dakota County Traffic Safety Project moves forward and seeks funding, the committee is expanding to include all participating agencies. Your department contact has received an invitation to participate in the committee process as this project moves forward. Special thanks to West St. Paul who arranged for reserve officers to assist with vehicle impounds and prisoner transports, The next committee meeting is 1030 hours on .July 6th, 2005 at the Apple Valley City Hall (McIntosh Room).. The Apple Valley Police Department is the lead agency of the project for the 2005-2006 fiscal year. 2 TRAFFIC:: SAFETY Pf~cfax"JECT .............. . Frnm tha Innc'nnH e Next E-riforcerrent Event J nd) The next enforcement event is scheduled for Saturday July 2nd from 2000- 0200. Briefing will be at the Mendota Heights Police Department at 2130 hours. The focus of this enforcement event is DUI with the designated area being on Highways 13 and 110 and the area of 35E. This event is planned around the Taste of Minnesota celebration and the traffic problems generated as motorists leave St. Paul after a night of food, fireworks and alcohol and enter Dakota County. LookingA\head The August enforcement event is scheduled for August 13th and will take place in the area of Highways 50 and 3 in Southern Dakota County, The event is planned to address traffic issues generated by the Dakota County Fair. Issues note The project committee used an evaluation form to seek feedback on issues related to the Dakota County Traffic Safety Project The top issue identified through the surveys is communications. Several MORE FUTURE EVENTS Events are scheduled past August as follows: Friday 9/2 (Labor Day), Speed focus on the main east and west roads in the County. Saturday 9/10 (Jesse James Days). DUI focus on Highways 3/19 as well as County 23/47 officers suggested using the host agency as the communications center for the event. The committee recognizes the communications issue and will continue to discuss this as the project continues. Saturday 10/29 (Halloween). DUI focus on County Road 42 and Highway 13. June 291h, 2005 The Attached Survey was done by Dakota County to evaluate resident and property owner perceptions regarding the Big Rivers Regional Trail. Big Rivers Regional Trail Residential Survey Report 12/24/97 Purpose The purpose of this survey was to evaluate resident and property owner perceptions along portions of the Big Rivers Regional Trail ( BRRT). The section of trail under study travels from the Lilydale Yacht Club in Lilydale, south through the City of Mendota Heights and terminates in the City of Mendota. Many trail -related surveys completed in different parts of the country have dealt with a narrow range of questions, typically either, property value related questions or questions concerning crime. This survey took a more comprehensive approach to survey research, enabling staff to address specific concerns from a variety of topics. Target Population This survey targeted residents that live within 300 feet of the trail through the Cities of Lilydale, Mendota and Mendota Heights. The trail influences a larger neighborhood when it reaches the City of Mendota. The survey area was widened to include those properties south to 3rd Street and west to E Street, thereby expanding the survey range to approximately 500 feet from the Big Rivers Regional Trail. Residential properties were selected through the application of County GIS records. Property managers of townhome and apartment complexes were contacted to obtain accurate individual mailing addresses. A visual field inspection was conducted to verify the digital data collected in the office. Several properties were omitted from the final mailing list due to significant physical barriers from the trail. Evaluation Methodology A mailed survey of nearby residents was chosen as an evaluation tool for a number of reasons. First, the types and numbers of questions were not appropriate for telephone interviewing. Many of the questions had multiple response choices, thereby making responses via telephone more problematic. Additionally, a number of questions required the respondent to summarize their experiences with the trail over the last year. A mailed survey gave respondents more time for reflection. Lastly, a mailed survey tends to safeguard from phone interview bias. Careful review of each written question attempted to eliminate language that may bias a reader into one response or another. A pre -survey informational post card was sent to each residence to introduce the residents to the upcoming mailed survey, stating the need for their, timely response. The next day the survey itself along with a postage -paid return envelope was sent. The residents were given approximately 14 days to respond. The information was distributed to the residents in a prescribed manner. The pre -survey 9 ostcard was to be received on Thursday, October 16th, 1997, the survey itself was to arrive Friday, October 17, 1997. This timing sequence was used to encourage residents to respond over the weekend, the intent being that people may spend more time reviewing mail on the weekend. On Friday, October 24th 1997 the reminder postcard was mailed, again in an effort to encourage responses over the weekend. A copy of the informational and reminder postcards and survey are included in Appendix A. Surveys were to be received by Wednesday, October 29th, after, which the returned surveys were compiled into a database. Surveys received later that November 14th were omitted from the results. Survey Profile of Trail The portion of the trail surveyed begins near the Lilydale Yacht Club in Lilydale and travels south along the old abandoned Soo Line rail line through the City of Mendota Heights. Crossing Highway 13, the trail enters the City of Mendota continuing past E Street where the survey range ends. The portion of the trail from which residents were surveyed is approximately 2 miles in length. Big Rivers Regional Trail Residential Survey Report. 12/24/97 Trail User Numbers The Parks Department conducted random user counts during the summer of 1997. Hourly trail user counts were performed for weekdays and weekends in the months of July and August. Weekday hourly counts averaged 26 users per hour, ranging from 9 to 76 users. Weekend hourly counts averaged 45 users per hour, ranging from 19 to 85 users. Bicycling is the predominate use, out -numbering the combined uses of hiking/walking and in-line skating. Details of the Mailed Survey The mailed resident survey was comprised of 18 questions. Those 18 questions were broken into five categories on the survey: "Your relationship to the trail", "Your opinions on trail issues", "Ownership/renter issues", "Your responses to living near the trail", and "Trail use". The survey included 14 multiple choice questions, two ranking questions and two open-ended response questions. A copy of the survey is included in Appendix A. Response Rate Table 1 depicts the response rate received by the returned resident surveys. Three hundred and seventy-three surveys were mailed, 175 were completed and returned, resulting in a response rate of 47%. The confidence interval or margin of error is plus or minus 5.4%. Table 1. Overall Response Rate to BRRT Community Survey Number of Number of Response Rate Surveys Mailed Surveys Returned 16.8% -----373, 175 -- --° 47°lfl- ---- -- Confidence Interval/Margin of Error +1-5.4 Source: BRRT Community Survey, 1997 Mailed Survey Results Table 2 presents data concerning the respondents' type of house or dwelling. Overall, 54 % of respondents live in townhouses/condominiums. Apartment dwellers make up the next largest group (24%) followed by single family residents with 16.8%. Table 2. Type of House or Dwelling Along BRRT Type of Dwelling_ Number Percent Single family home _ _ 29' _ 16.8% Duplex 1 .01% _ -Apartment.-, -=--- ---- 42 _24.3% Townhouse/Condominium 94 54.3% Mobile Home' - - ''0 Q Total 173 of 175 responded Source: BRRT Community Survey, 1997 Table 3 describes barriers that separate the residence and the trail. Respondents were able to select all those items that separate their home from the trail. Hill/steep slope is found at 93% of respondent's dwellings, and fencing is second with 19.5% of residences. Vegetation/hedges makes up 16% of responses, followed by exterior lighting with 5%, Dakota County Office of Planning 2 Big Rivers Regional Trail Residential Survey Report: 12/24/97 Table 3. Item of Separation Between Residence and Trail* Item of Separation Number Percent _ Fencing 33 19.5% Hill/Steep Sloe 157 92.9% _ Exterior Lighting 8 4.7% -Dog _ — -- 1 --- .06% _ -_16.0% Vegetation/Hedges 27 No Trespassing Signs 1 .06% None — — 6 3s6% Other 0 - Total 169 of 175 responded Source: BRRT Community Survey, 1997 Respondents could choose all that apply Table 4 illustrates the physical relationship between the trail and nearby property. Over 52% stated they have property along which the trail runs, while 42% stated that the trail is near, but not touching their property. Table 4. Relationship of Trail to Resident's Property Relationship_-___ Number Percent Along Edge __-- --- 86 52A% Near, Not Touching 69 42.1% Don't Knowe " 9 5.5% Total 164 of 175 responded Source: BRRT Community Survey, 1997 Table 5 depicts the responses from those residents who owned property along the trail before the trail was constructed. Ninety-one percent of respondents stated that there has been no difference or fewer problems associated with trespass, vandalism, and vagrancy since the trail was constructed. Approximately 9% of respondents stated that there have been more problems since the trail has been constructed. Table 5. Residents Who Owned Property Along BRRT Before Trail Was Constructed- "Has There Been More or Fewer Problems Since the Trail Has Been Constructed?" Degree of Problem Number_ Percent Fewer Problems-- - 6"' 4.4% . More Problems 12 8.9% No Difference---- 117; 86.7% Total 135 of 175 responded Source: BRRT Community Survey, 1997 Resident opinions on how the presence of the trail affected their decision to buy or rent property near the trail is identified in Table 6. Nearly 33% believe that the trail would make their property easier to sell. Over 37% felt that the trail would have no effect on the ease at which they could sell their property. Five percent of respondents stated that the presence of the trail would make their property harder to sell, The remaining 25% are unsure as to what effect the trail has on their property. Dakota County Office of Planning Big Rivers Regional Trail Residential Survey Report, 12/24/97 Table 6. Resident Opinion Whether Presence of Trail Would Make Their Property Easier or Harder to Sell Ease of Sale Number Percent Easier 53 32.9% Harder 8 _ 5.0% No Effect 60 37.3% Unsure 40 24.8% Total 161 of 175 responded Source: BRRT Community Survey, 1997. Table 7 presents data regarding resident opinion on how the presence of the trail could affect the resale value of their property. Twenty-three percent of respondents stated that the trail would increase the resale value of their property. Residents who believe the presence of the trail will decrease the resale value of thein property totals 6%. Over 40% of respondents feel the presence of the trail will have no effect on the resale value of their property, while the remaining 30% of respondents are unsure. Table 7. Resident Opinion About How Presence of Trail Affects Resale Value of Their Property Perce tion of Resale Value Number Percent Decreased Value — — -- — 10 — - — 6.1% Increase Value - -- — 38 23.3% No Effect- 66 `. 40.5% Unsure 49 30.1% Total 163 of 175 responded Source: BRRT Communitv Survev. 1997 Resident opinions on how the presence of the trail affected their decision to buy or rent property is identified on Table 8. These residents moved into their dwellings after, the trail was constructed. Nearly .55% of respondents stated that the presence of the trail had no effect on their decision to buy or rent the property. Nearly 42% of respondents claimed that the trail added to the property' s appeal. One respondent or 3% of the respondents however, felt that the presence of the trail detracted from the property's appeal and reflected negatively on their decision to buy or rent. Table 8. Resident Opinion On How Presence of Trail Affected Decision To Buy or Rent Property Opinion - _ __ Number Percent Added to property's.appeal__-- -- 13 Detracted from propels appeal 1 3.2% -' No effect on decision - 54.8%' _ _ Total 31 of 40 responded _--17_ Source: BRRT Community Survey, 1997 As shown in Table 9, over 76% of total respondents are at least somewhat satisfied with having the trail as a neighbor. An additional 14.8% have neutral feelings toward the path. Those respondents, who are favorable toward the trail, totaling 46%, are very satisfied with the trail as a neighbor. Conversely, 9% of the total respondents had some level of dissatisfaction of the trail as a neighbor the majority of which were somewhat dissatisfied with the trail as a neighbor. Dakota County Office of Planning 4 Big Rivers Regional Trail Residential Survey Report.' 12124197 Table 9. Resident Satisfaction of Trail as a Neighbor Resident Satisfaction Number Percent Very Satisfied 77 45.6% Satisfied 46 27.2% _ Somewhat; Satisfied ;6 3.6% Neutral _ 25 14.8% Somewhat Dissatisfied "7 4.1% Dissatisfied 3 1.8% Very Dissatisfied ' 5 _ 3.0%_ Total 169 of 175 responded _ _ Source: BRRT Community Survey, 1997. Table 10 identifies initial resident reaction to living near the trail compared to their feelings of living near the trail today. Overall, 50.3% of respondents indicate their reaction toward the trail was "as expected". Over 25% of respondents chose "much better" or "better". Nine respondents of a total of 16.5, or, 5.4% felt that their opinion of the trail is worse now than their initial reaction. Lastly, nearly 19% of respondents had no opinion. Table 10. Resident Initial Reaction of Living Near Trail Compared to Living Near Trail Today Opinion then v. now Number Percent Much Better 15 -- 23 Better_ ---- - -- 27 -83----- 16.4% _ - As Ex ected No Effect -- 50.3% Worse ---- - -- - 5 3.0% Much Worse 4 0 No Opinion 31 onded Total 165 of 175 responded Source: BRRT Community Survey, 1997 Table 11, describes resident opinion of how the trail has affected the quality of their neighborhood. Ninety-five of 163 total respondents or over 58% believe the trail has improved the quality of their neighborhood to some degree. Nearly 36% stated that the trail has had no effect on the quality of their neighborhood, while 6% felt that the trail has "worsened" the neighborhood quality. Table 11. Resident Opinion of How Trail Has Affected the Quality of Their Neighborhood Affect on QuaiJty Source: Number _ Greatly Impffoyed -- -- 23 _Percent - 14.1% Improved 72 44.2% No Effect -- - 58 - -- -- — 35.6% Worsened----- — -- — 10- 6.1 Greatly Worsened 0 — - Total 163 of 175 responded-------- es onded Source: BRRT Community Survey, 1997 Frequency of trail use by residents is illustrated in Table 12. The use patterns are spread rather evenly across the categories, perhaps highlighting the varied age groups that live along the Big Rivers Regional Trail. Nearly 25% claim they have never used the trail. Conversely, nearly 27%% use the trail at least once a week. Respondents who use the trail several times a month total 20%, and those who use the trail once a month make up the remaining 29%. Dakota County Office of Planning Big Rivers Regional Trail Residential Survey Report: 12/24/97 Table 12. Frequency Residents Use Trail Frequency of Use Number Percent Several Times a Week 26 15.7% Once a Week 18 10.8% Several Times a Month 33 20.0% Once a Month 48 _ 29.0% Never _ 41 24.7% Total 166 of 175 responded Never Source: BRRT Community Survey, 1997 Table 13 describes when respondents feel safe on the trail. Respondents were asked to choose all categories of use that apply. The designated hours of trail operation is from sunrise to sunset. Fifteen percent of respondents always feel safe on the trail; nearly 59% feel safe during daylight hours. Over 14% feel safe on the trail during the evening with friends and/or a dog. Forty respondents or 24% stated that they do not use the trail as compared to 41 respondents to Table 12, "Frequency Residents Use Trail". This may account for the one respondent who never feels safe on the trail. Table 13. Resident Opinion of When They Feel Safe of the Trail* When The f Feel Safe Number Percent Alw?Ys- - - - - 25 15.0% During Daylight Hours 98 58.7% During Evening with Friends 24 14.4% ---.6%---- Never 1---- I,Don't Use the;Trail 40 24.0% Total responses 188- 167 of 175 responded Source: BRRT Community Survey, 1997 'Respondents choose all that apply Table 14 describes the perception residents have of problems that occur on or near their property. Data on pre -trail incidents of problems within the survey sample are not available. Several assumptions can be made however. Incidents of litter, unleashed pets, trespass, vandalism and theft did occur before the trail was constructed although the level of magnitude is conjectural. An inaccurate measure of a problem observed could result when respondents identify a problem that is not directly attributed to the presence of the trail. Such things could include wind-blown litter, a stray pet passing through the neighborhood, or trespass, vandalism and theft from individuals entering the neighborhood by car. Additionally, perceptions of several problems are subjective. The perception of loitering on the trail, excessive noise, and discourteous or rude trail users may vary from individual to individual; likewise the threshold of trespassing is subjective as well. The list of potential problems reflect a variety of issues that can be attributed to elements of trail design, patrol and maintenance, and the quality of the surrounding neighborhoods. The incidence of vandalism on or near residents' property is low, 96% of respondents stating it has never occurred, Three percent of respondents indicated vandalism has occurred 1 to 3 times, while one respondent, or, less that 1%, stated that vandalism has occurred 4 or more times. Theft rates are low, 98% of respondents indicated that theft has never occurred on their property, while the remaining 2% stated that theft has occurred 1 to 3 times. Eighty-six percent of respondents reported that trespassing has never occurred. Thirteen percent of respondents stated that trespassing has occurred 1 to .3 times. Another potential problem associated with the trail that can be attributed to design is a loss of privacy. Privacy itself is subjective; nonetheless 90% of respondents stated that they have not had a loss of privacy due to the trail. Four, percent indicated that their privacy has been lost 1 to .3 times, while 6% stated that privacy has been lost 4 or more times. Dakota County Office of Planning 6 Big Rivers Regional Trail Residential Survey Report.- 12/24/97 Several potential problems associated with the trail fall in the realm of park patrol and maintenance, These include; illegal motor use on trail, litter, on/near my property, unleashed or roaming pets, and lack of trail maintenance. Nine percent of respondents indicated that illegal motor use has occurred 1 to 3 times. Nineteen percent of respondents stated that litter on/near their property has occurred 1 to 3 times, while 8% stated that litter, has occurred 4 or more times, The incidence of unleashed or roaming pet occurring 1 to 3 times has been reported by 28% of respondents, 4% indicated that they have observed unleashed pets 4 or more times. A lack of trail maintenance 1 to 3 times has been observed by 10% of respondents. Table 14. Percent of Problems That Occur on or Near Resident Property Potential Problem Never 1 to 3 4 or more _ -Illegal motor use on trail 91% 9% - on trail 79% 18% 3% -Loitering Litter on/near my property — 73% 190/0 8% -- Unleashed or roaming pets 68% 28% 4% Trespassing on mrp operty_ - -- _.—__86% __...... , 13/0 __. 1!° — -- Discourteous, rude trail users 82% 12% 6% Trail users ask to use phonelbathroom_ 98% _ 1 % _ <1% Excessive noise from trail 87% 9% 4% 'Lack of trail maintenance - _ _ 89% _ _ 1'0% _ <1% Loss of privacy due to trail 90%_ 4% 6% _ Vandalism on myproperty.from trail users 96% 3°!° <1°!0_ _ Theft from my property from trail users 98% 2% Source: BRRT Community Survey, 1997 The Mendota Heights Police Department provided Staff with incident reports for the Cities of Lilydale, Mendota Heights and Mendota. The combined incident rates for specific crimes as a percent of total households, in the three Cities, are higher than the incidence of perceived crime illustrated by the survey respondents. • The incidence of theft/lar-ceny as a percent of total households in the combined Cities is 5.9% • The incidence of property offenses (vandalism) as a percent of total households is 4.5% As stated in Table 1-14, 2% of respondents felt that theft has occurred at least once on or near their property in the last 12 months. Four percent of respondents stated vandalism has at least one time in the last twelve months„ In comparing the sample of the survey to the entire population of these communities, reports of both incidents are lower along the trail, and theft is nearly one-third that of the communities at large. If the trail is having a negative impact, it is much less of an effect than any of the contributing factors at play in other areas in these communities. A further tabular evaluation of perceived problems is in Appendix B. Written responses of the advantages of the trail can be generalized in the following: easy, convenient access for exercise and recreation, opportunity to enjoy scenic beauty of outdoors, use for families, and preserving open space. A complete list of the written responses is found in Appendix C. Written responses regarding the disadvantages of living near the Big Rivers Regional Trail included; large number of users, conflicts among users, fear of potential vandalism, theft, trespass and litter. Fear of potential problems appears to be the predominant response. Although the actual incidence of problems along the trail is low, the perceived fear, that problems will occur is real. The complete list of written responses is found in Appendix C, Dakota County Office of Planning 7 ivers Regional Trail Residential Survey Report: 12/24/97 APPENDIX A Big Rivers Regional Trail Communitv Survev Dear Resident or Property Owner: The Dakota County Office of'Planning is seeking comments from people who live or own property near the Big Rivers Regional Trail to better understand how neighbors perceive the trail. The Big Rivers Regional Trail parallels the scenic Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers through the cities of'Lilydale starting near the Lilydale Yacht Club, traveling south to the W P.A Scenic Overlook in Mendota Heights Your responses will provide us with valuable information to help us address issues about existing and planned trails in a more informed manner. Please take a few minutes to answer these questions about your experience with the trail in your area. We found that it takes about 7 to 8 minutes, on average, to complete the survey. So that we can compile the information in a timely fashion, we ask that you return the completed questionnaire to us by Wednesday October, 29, 1997. A postage -paid return envelope is included for your convenience, All answers will be kept completely confidential If you have any questions about the survey, please call Tom Berry, Physical Development Planner, Dakota County Office of'Planning, at 891-7044. Thank you for helping us with this study. PLEASE RETURN BY WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 29,1997 TO: Dakota County Office of'Planning • 149.55 Gala)de Avenue • Apple Valley, MN .5.5124 1. Is there a house or dwelling on the property you own/rent near the trail? ❑ Yes ❑ No (1j'you've answered "no"please skip to question .5.) 2. What type of house or dwelling is on the property? ❑ Single family house ❑ Duplex ❑ Apartment ❑ Townhouse/Condominium ❑ Mobile home 3 Which of the following separates your home from the trail? Please check all that apply. ❑ Fencing ❑ Exterior lighting ❑ Vegetation/Hedges ❑ Hill/Steep slope ❑ Dog ❑ No trespassing/Private property signs ❑ None ❑ Other 4 Where is the trail in relationship to this property? ❑ Runs along the edge of the property ❑ Near the property but does not touch it ❑ Don't know 5 Below is a list of public benefits trails can provide, Please circle the number that best indicates how important you feel trail systems are in providing each benefit. Benefits Not at all important Extremely Important Preserving undeveloped open space 1 2 3 4 5 Aesthetic beauty 1 2 3 4 5 Public recreation opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 Health and fitness 1 2 3 4 5 Public education about environment/history 1 2 3> 4 5 Community pride 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic reduction 1 2 3 ': 4 5 Transportation alternatives 1 2 3 4 5 Access for disabled persons 1 2 3 4 5 Over Dakota County Office of Planning 8 Big Rivers Regional Trail Residential Survey Report: 12/24/97 6 Below is a list of problems that might occur on the trail system. Please circle the number, of times you have observed this problem during the last twelve months. Potential Problem Number, of times observed during last twelve months Illegal motor vehicle/motorcycle use on trail Never 1 to 3 4 to 7 8 or more Loitering on trail Never 1 to .3 4 to 7 8 or more Litter on/near my property Never 1 to 3 4 to 7 8 or more Unleashed and roaming pets Never 1 to .3 4 to 7 8 or more Trespassing on my property by trail users Never 1 to 3 4 to 7 8 or more Discourteous, rude trail users Never 1 to 3 4 to 7 8 or more Trail users asking to use phone/bathroom Never 1 to .3' 4 to 7 8 or more Excessive noise from trail Never 1 to .3 4 to 7 8 or more Lack of trail: maintenance Never` 1 to 3 4 to 7 8 or more Loss of privacy due to trail Never 1 to .3 4 to 7 8 or more Vandalism on my property from trail users Never 1 to 3' 4 to 7 8 or more Theft from my property from trail users Never 1 to 3 4 to 7 8 or more Other 7 In your opinion, what are the advantages of living near the Big Rivers Regional Trail? 8. In your opinion, what are the disadvantages of living near the Big Rivers Regional Trail? 9, Did you own or rent this property before the trail was constructed? ❑ Yes ❑ No (YJ you answered "no" please skip question 10 and continue with Question 11, if you answered "yes "please answer question 10, skp question 11, and continue with Question 12) 10. Since you've owned or rented this property before the trail was constructed, have there been fewer or more problems associated with vandalism, trespass, and vagrancy since the trail was built? Please check one: ❑ Fewer problems ❑ More problems ❑ No difference 11. Since you bought or rented this property after the trail had been constructed, how did the presence of the trail affect your decision to buy or rent the property? Please check one: ❑ Added to the property's appeal ❑ Detracted from the property's appeal ❑ No effect 12. If you were to sell this property, do you think being near the trail would make it harder or easier to sell? Please check one; ❑ Easier' ❑ Harder ❑ No effect ❑ Unsure 1.3. How do you think being located near the trail has affected the resale value of this property? Please check one: ❑ Increased value ❑ Decreased value ❑ No effect on value ❑ Unsure 14, Overall, how satisfied are you with having the trail as a neighbor? Please check one: ❑ Very satisfied ❑ Satisfied ❑ Somewhat satisfied ❑ Neutral ❑ Somewhat dissatisfied ❑ Dissatisfied ❑ Very dissatisfied 15, Compare your initial reaction to the idea of living near the trail to how you feel about living near the trail today. Please check one ❑ Much better ❑ Better ❑ As expected ❑ Worse ❑ Much worse ❑ No opinion 16. How do you feel the trail has affected the quality of your neighborhood? Please check one, ❑ Greatly improved ❑ Improved ❑ No effect ❑ Worsened ❑ Greatly worsened 17, How often do you or members of your household use the trail? Please check one ❑ Several times a week ❑ Once a week ❑ Several times a month ❑ Once a month ❑ Never 18 When do you feel safe on the trail? Please check all that apply: ❑ Always ❑ During daylight hours ❑ During the evening with friends and/or dog ❑ Never ❑ I don't use the trail Dakota County Office of Planning 9 Big Rivers Regional Trail Residential Survey Report, 12/24/97 Dear Resident or Property Owner: The Big Rivers Regional Trail is celebrating one year of being open to the public, The Big Rivers Regional Trail parallels the scenic Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers through the cities of Lilydale starting near the Lilydale Yacht Club, travelling south to the W,P„A. Scenic Overlook in Mendota Heights In the next few days you will receive a survey asking for your responses toward the Big Rivers Regional Trail. Your input will help us to address issues about existing or planned trails in a more informed manner, Please take a few minutes to answer the survey when it arrives. If you not receive a survey in one week, please contact our office at 891-7030, and we will send one out right away„ Thank you in advance for your response! Dear Resident or Property Owner: Last week you received a Community Survey regarding the Big Rivers Regional Trail. If you returned the completed survey, thank you!! We appreciate your timely response,. If you did not return the completed survey, please take a few minutes to do so„ Every response we receive provides us with valuable information that will help shape current and future trails in Dakota County. If you misplaced the original survey, please contact our office at 891-7030, and we will send another one out right away. Dakota County Office of Planning 11 Big Rivers Regional Trail Residential Survey Report: 12124197 Table B-1. Perceptions of Residents and Property Owners of Problems Along BRRT That Occur on or Near Their Property Potential Problem Percent Never Percent I to 3 Percent 4 to Percent 8 or more Total Response % 8 or more % 7 Sum Illegal motor use on trail 91% 9% - - 150 Loitering on trail 79% Illejal motor use on trail 1 % 29/. 148 Litter on/near my property 73% .18% 19% 5%, 3% 146 Unleashed or roaming pets 68% 28% 3% 1% 149 Trespassing on my property 3 13% 1 % 1 % 149 Discourteous, rude trail users 82% 19% 3% 3% 146 Trail users ask to use phone/bathroom 98% 1 % I % - 146 Excessive noise from trail 87% 9% 4% 1 % 149 Lack of trail maintenance 89% 10% 1 % - 146 Loss of privacy due to trail 90%2% 1% 149 6% 148 Vandalism_2n My propert from trail users 96% 3% 1%, 3% 147 Theft from my property from trail users 98% 2% - 98% 147 d Source: BRRT Community Survey, 1997 Table B-2. Perceptions of Residents and Property Owners of Problems Along BRRT That Occur on or Near Their Property Includes Number of Responses Potential Problem Never % I to3 % 4 to 7 % 8 or more % Total Sum Never Sum 1 to 3 Sum 4 to 7 Sum 8 or more Response Illejal motor use on trail 136 91% 14 0 150 Loitering on trail 117 79% 27 89/o 1 <1% 3 2% 148 Litter on/near my property 107 73% 28 19% 7 5% A 3% 146 Unleashed or roaming pets 101 68% 42 8�/.— 4 3% 21% 149 Trespassing ons property 128 —969/6— 71 19 13%, 1 <1% 1 1% 149 Discourteous, rude trail users 120 82% 17 12%4 3% 5 3% 146 Trail users ask to use phone/bathroom 143 98% 2 1% 1 <1% 146 Excessive noise from trail 129 87% 13 9% 6 4% 1 1% 1 - 49 Lack of trail maintenance 130 89% is 10% 1 <1% 0 - 14G Loss of privacy due to trail 133 4% 3 2% 148 Vandalism on my property from trail users 141 96% 147 Theft from my property from trail users 144 98% 3 29/. 0 0 4-7 Rniirr, RPPTCnm—nifvR-- IqQ7 Dakota County Office of Planning 12 Big Rivers Regional Trail Residential Survey Report: 12/24/97 APPENDIX C In your opinion, what are the advantages of living near the Big Rivers Regional Trail? Includes general comments Access. Access. Easy access. Easy access. Easy access. Easy access. Easy access to walk. Easy access, exercise, pleasure. Easy access to it. Access to the trail. Convenient access. Convenience. Easy access, recreation. Access, open beauty, community pride. Access to health and fitness opportunities. Accessibility to walking trail away from car or road traffic. Easy access to a hiking trail. Quick access. Immediate access. The accessibility. Easy access to trail. Quick access. Easy access to a fine place to walk. Easy access to its use. Easy to access. We bike and walk on it. Access to walking- scenic river view. Easy access, aesthetic beauty. Easy access to walking, biking, blading. Easy access when I want to go hiking or biking also it's a beautiful trail. Easy access to a beautiful, healthy walk. It is an aesthetic treat to look down upon. Access to the river space for recreation and connection with our sacred earth. Close access to trail. Close access to beauty and healthy activity. Living near. I can walk or bike- easy access from my home. Convenient to use it. So convenient- very beautiful. Dakota County Office of Planning 13 Big Rivers Regional Trail Residential Survey Report.' 12/24/97 Able to get there without having to drive. A place to walk to enjoy the beauty of the area. Beauty, exercise- family bonding. Travel/time. I can walk to it. Close to walking path. Easy to use- running or cycling. I use it a number of times a week this summer. One could easily use the trail when one wishes to do so. Recreational value close at hand. Great asset and informative, near and well maintained. Use of trail. Close to us to use. Close by. We walk a lot- it's nice not to have to drive a great distance. Use it for exercise and nature walks. Use of the trail. Nearness in case you want to walk or bike. Great use of abandoned railroad right-of-way, very well designed combining bike, rail, river and parks. A great benefit to tax payers and good use of river and space. Beautifully maintained path for walking on a scenic route. Because I love to hike on the trail. For families. The beauty! Great hiking- brings river closer to us by using trail. Aesthetic beauty- preserving undeveloped space. Proximity to walking paths- time saved. Great for walking- near and safe. Walking facility. Nice walking trail. Walking. Walking. Walking and enjoying nature. Nice walking area. A place to walk where you do not have to worry about cars. A good place to walk. A nice place to walk. Good walking trail. People enjoy walking. Excellent to have trail so close. Walking for fitness; enjoy the fresh air; enjoy observing river traffic. It is a nice area to be without worrying about cars. It is handy for taking a walk. It provides us with an excellent, scenic place to hike, or ride. All those benefits. Enjoy use of trail. Enjoy nature and outdoors in general while using trail. People get out and use it. Dakota County Office of Planning 14 Big Rivers Regional Trail Residential Survey Report: 12/24/97 • Recreation. • Great recreational service. • Recreational opportunities. • Recreation we walk/roller blade/bike on this trail often. • Recreation. • Recreation, exercise, beautiful environment. • Using the trail to run, rollerblade; access to the river. • Provides a valuable recreational amenity- health- nature lover. • Opportunity for exercise in a healthy and beautiful setting. • Opportunity to hike, bike, skate and jog in relative safety away from automobiles. • Exercise opportunities, boosting property desirability. • It provides some scenic and convenient exercise and recreation. I walked the tracks before the trails. • A nice smooth place to walk and admire the beauty and has made the area along the trail in Mendota look much neater than it used to be. • Eliminated train. • An opportunity to enjoy nature and the beautiful rivers while encouraging exercise. • Having a beautiful, safe place to run and ride bike. • Excellent for exercise and lovely views; birds. • Scenic beauty. • It is scenic. • Scenic opportunities of river. • Beautiful, fitness. • Enjoy using the trail, also appreciate the history of the river. • Enjoy the history plaques and the ease in walking. • Many benefits. • Contributes to my health and fitness and preserves open spaces. • Green space. • Open space. • It is great to be able to use a trail that's "just outside your door". • It is nice to walk, bike and push strollers or take dog for walk. • Aesthetic, near water and nature, recreation/fitness. • Aesthetic, open space for walking- biking, roller blading. • Provides a beautiful place for walking, biking. • Being outdoors. • Fantastic access to one of the most scenic places in the Cities. This trail is a big reason why I live where I do. • Because of age we are unable to use the trail and so are not really familiar with it. It looks beautiful and our visitors love it! • Unfortunately because of physical conditions I can't use it, but I get satisfaction in seeing others use it. • Visiting friends have made use of the trail from Lilydale to Mendota. • I feel it is good for family doing more together. • Consider it extremely pleasurable for young people. • We have the beautiful scenery- important to share with others. Dakota County Office of Planning 15 Big Rivers Regional Trail Residential Survey Report.. 12/24/97 In your opinion, what are the disadvantages of living near the Big Rivers Regional Trail • Lots of people all the time, I hope it won't get noisy. • The only disadvantage is that as a woman, I can't walk alone. • I'm still uncomfortable with thought of walking alone on path- seems wiser to be with someone. • I am not comfortable walking on trail because of roller bladers and bicycles. • Many people. • Constantly busy. • It can sometimes get crowded because of bikers, roller bladers, walkers, etc. all use the same space. • Too many people, increase traffic. • Brings people into this area. • May bring undesirable people. • Potential problem as trail becomes better known. • Bringing all kinds of people into the community whom we may or may not trust. • Public over use. • There should not be any disadvantages. How are you addressing safety? • Is it safe? -alone- down by the river? • Walking alone, afraid. • I won't allow my children or myself on the trail without spouse for safety reasons. • Lack of easy access to trail and lack of adequate parking when trail is discovered by more users. Thank you. • Increase traffic, potential for higher crime- more people. • As the trail becomes better known and more used, there could be some vandalism problems- we hope not! • Noise, trash in future, traffic, parking next to road. • Stray dogs running around, dog doo all over the trail. • Possible vandalism and introduction of more people to a quiet area. • Possible trespassing and litter. • Possibility of intruders climbing hill. • Potential possibility of some vandalism. • Potential problem i.e. vandalism, noise. • Potential loss of privacy, theft, potential to have screening vegetation cut down -didn't happen. • Potential of people coming on our property, and potential vandalism. • Possible trespassers. • Makes it easier for undesirables to get onto our property. • Can't walk it- have to drive there. • Loss of some privacy. • Do not have the privacy as I used to. • Loss of privacy. • Trespassing- theft and vandalism toward our building. • Traffic, parking. • Vandalism, trespassing, etc. Dakota County Office of Planning 16 Big Rivers Regional Trail Residential Survey Report, 12/24/97 • Rudeness of trail users, increase theft and vandalism and the opinion that I do not have the right to own my property. • More people, more traffic, losing our quiet neighbor, more people brings more theft, crime, and loss of safety! • Being really close as I am- people can see me and yard very well- I do sometimes feel a little uncomfortable about that- I don't have the privacy I had before. • Parking in Mendota. • This trail doesn't provide any or few benefits to the property owner- there has been more traffic and loitering by my house. I have lost privacy and feel my neighborhood has become unsafe for my children to play alone in because of added stranger in the area. Dakota County Office of Planning 17 Big Rivers Regional Trail Residential Survey Report, 12/24/97 Suggestions/Comments • Where I live the bank going down from my property is owned by MnDOT. I wish they would keep the bank trimmed better than they do. They own it. • The trail between Highway 13 and the Yacht and Pool club is not groomed for walking during the winter months, however, tracks in the snow indicate snowmobiles use the trail. • There is no direct access without having to get in the car and drive to a parking lot. Therefore we can't ride bikes on it. • It is below a cliff from my apartment and I see no disadvantage. I do worry about the access area on Sibley Memorial Highway in Mendota. Signs should be put up to warn traffic of the crossing. • Cyclists almost never show courtesy to walkers. It is customary to alert pedestrians when passing. • There should be a stop sign at Highway 13- have seen people cross when cars are near, children do not look. • Need more fences, more stop signs or at least enforcement of the ones already in place. Increase traffic, loud noises, strangers in area, exposure to trespassing, traffic hazard, unsupervised children. • I don't have a trail -instead I have a two-lane highway directly in front of my house. Had the trail been narrower, the users might not go so fast. There eventually will be a very serious accident at one of the Highway 13 crossings or at the D Street in Mendota. These folks never "ever" stop. Sometime someone will come down the D Street hill and won't see 'em until it's too late. The parents are teaching their children to disobey stop signs etc. Put a park patrol out there and watch, you'll be surprised. • Difficult to access. • The trail is lined with white and yellow lines in the same manner as a highway. Yet pedestrians, bikers, skaters all use the right lane. I prefer to walk on the left, opposing wheeled traffic, for two reasons. 1. I cannot hear bikes behind me; (they are fast and most give no verbal warning) (I am not hearing impaired) 2. I walk my dog, who is startled by bikes approaching from the rear but not from the front. Also, my dog always walks on my left. If I stayed to the right, the dog would be toward the center and a definite hazard to the bicyclist. I suggest signage indicating that pedestrians should "face" traffic. • It would help to have steps on 2nd Street and G Street to get to trail instead of going up to the highway to get to the trail. • None, except needs better parking space particularly near the Yacht Club. • Don't know who could be lurking out there in dark. We fought it at meetings to no avail. Only redeeming quality if any- it is down below our building. Two ladies tried to walk it- constantly put in hazardous situations- trail taken over by rude people on bikes coming up behind no warning- (roller blades same) • Occasional noise. I am a walker and I would feel safer if roller bladers and bicyclists would not go so fast- also it would be safer if they all had horns or signal their approach. A universal method of warning should be developed. • Security also people climbing hillibank, can erode bank. • Need better parking at Pool and Yacht Club and in Mendota. • None, if well designed, patrolled and maintained. • Potential of misuse if trail is not monitored. • None, except we're too old to enjoy it fully! We're 71 and 80! Dakota County Office of Planning 18 Big Rivers Regional Trail Residential Survey Report, 12/24/97 • I moved to this area in late April. I am all for preserving our beautiful outdoors for the public to enjoy. I would love to walk the trail on every fine day but as a 70 -year-old widow, I am concerned about my safety if I should walk alone. • I guess I would have some concerns about walking the trail alone. • I strongly object to the satellite in view at entrance to the historic site in Mendota. Should be moved further down trail- most unsightly!! • Lack of bathroom or phone for emergencies. Dakota County Office of Planning 19 Jun Z4 ZOOS 17:83:19 Via Fax -> 6514SZO940 Administrator Page 801 Of 002 L . -Frl F x- �C a a wswo L36; s A weekly legislative update from the League ofMinnesota Cities June 24, 2005 Page 1 Core functions will continue Property tax freeze and turbocharged TNT—dead for now Yesterday in Ramsey County District Court, Chief Judge Gregg Johnson ordered Minnesota State agencies and officials, county and municipal entities, and school districts to perform core functions of government in the event of a partial state government shut down. A "special master" was also appointed to monitor compliance with the court order to continue core services.. In the 1.0-12age ruling, the court did not specifically identify what is considered a core function, but did cite definitions of essential services from the 1995 federal government shut down as a guideline.. The court did agree to a list of core services provided by state agencies that have yet to be funded, but concluded that core functions are not limited to those on the list, which was attached along with the ruling. "State agencies and officials are mandated to employ the number of employees necessary to carry -out the core functions in a timely manner," wrote Judge Johnson.. The c:.i iLn )lel;e ruling noted that the state has contractual obligations with a variety of federal government programs and Constitutional obligations to provide adequate public education and provide for the "security, benefit and protection of the people" and that core functions funding these obligations must be funded.. Questions? Contact Brian Strub at 651.281.1256 or bstrub i .17nnc.or. . On Friday morning, the Tax Working Group voted not to include the local property tax freeze and the taxpayer satisfaction survey in the compromise tax bill they are currently compiling.. At least for the time being, the property tax freeze and the taxpayer satisfaction survey are dead.. The Tax Working Group spent Friday morning debating the details of the House taxpayer satisfaction survey proposal., The League of Minnesota Cities and other local government groups were on hand to testify against the proposal.. However, Sen. Will:iarn Belangf-r R- BlooiniruziL ), who has consistently and strongly opposed the taxpayer satisfaction survey and the Senate's property tax freeze, made his motion before there was any opportunity for public testimony. Working group members were very familiar with local governments' concerns, as they had been lobbied by many and heard committee testimony at earlier points throughout the regular session., While today's vote is a success in our efforts to keep the state out of the local budget setting process, the chance these measures will come up again as part of the final negotiations during the special session is highly likely.. Seal. I.,,rrt-v Pogemiller `13FL-1-lirznea olis had been the lead proponent of the property tax freeze, and Re -12. Phil Ilxinkie. R-Shorc::vie sir had led the charge on the taxpayer satisfaction survey. As the chairs of the tax committees in their respective bodies, they were able during the For more information on city legislative issues, contact any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relations team.. 651 281 1200 or 800.925 1122 Jun 24 2005 17:84:81 Via Fax -> 6514528948 Administrator Page 002 Of 882 LMC i?liu,. pxnm�6nu •.-�'.+�r��uxrs� -Fri a F ax - y A weekly legislative update from the League ofMinnesota Cities regular legislative session to include these measures in their respective tax bills.. With their prominent presence on the working group, there is no reason to doubt that the proposals could reemerge.. Since the end of the regular session and during the tax working group negotiations, Sen. Pogemiller had held strong to his desire to fully fund LGA, and he has connected the property tax freeze to fully funding LGA.. Late last week, Rep. Krinkie indicated his strong desire to couple any Senate LGA increase with a property tax freeze. After this morning's vote, Sen.. Pogemiller indicated to members of the working group these could both come up again for discussion.. With less than a week before a partial state government shut down, the Tax Working Group plans to meet again Saturday morning Stay tuned.. Questions? Contact either Jennifer O'Rourke at 651.281.1261 or .pare; urke(d'hnnc:.org or Gary Carlson at 651.281.1255 or �7t; arl sc;A�z't'��.lrrz.rxi;. e;pr�4��. U.S. Supreme Court reaffirms cities' authority to take property for economic development The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on Thursday that reaffirms the longstanding power of local governments to take property for economic development.. In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld the ability of the City of New London, Connecticut to take property to make way for a riverfront development project that would increase tax revenues, create jobs and improve the local June 24, 2005 Page 2 economy.. It found that the takings in this case were part of "a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted `to benefit a particular class of individuals ."' In its decision, the court reasserted that, "promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function.." The justices also reaffirmed that local elected officials are in a better position than the judiciary to make decisions about what public needs justify the use of eminent domain.. While the court recognizes economic development as a legitimate public purpose when it comes to taking property through eminent domain, property rights groups are likely continue the push at the state -level to restrict local condemnation authority.. The last two sessions, the Minnesota Auto Dealers Association has advocated for sweeping changes to Minnesota's eminent domain statutes.. Their legislation calls for two significant changes to state law.. First, their bill would allow the court to award payment of property owners' attorney fees in takings for transportation purposes if the final award exceeds the acquiring authority's last offer by 20 percent.. It also would require cities to prove by a preponderance of evidence that a taking for redevelopment or economic development is for a primarily public purpose. If enacted, this legislation would generate expensive litigation, increase the cost of public projects, and limit cities' use of eminent domain to take property for critical economic development and redevelopment projects. Questions? Contact Laura Offerdahl at 651.281.1260 or lo, erdahl!(�.lm.�ac.oa£�. For more information on city legislative issues, contact any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relations team.. 651.281.1200 or 800 925.1122