The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity - MNDOT SCRCP - Discussions Fall 2011 St . Croix River Crossing Project Meeting#2—Brief Summary Oak Park Heights—MnDOT discussions Wednesday—December 28, 2011 Attendees(lead participants) Dave Beaudet Les Abrahamson Mary McComber Mike Runk Ted Lillie Kathy Lohmer Gary Kriesel Beth Bartz Scott McBride Adam Josephson Note:Councilmember Mark Swenson was absent due to illness. Attendees(staff and other) Eric Johnson,City Administrator Mark Vierling,City Attorney Chris Long,City Engineer Marilyn Remer, MnDOT Todd Clarkowski, MnDOT Peter David), MnDOT Wayne Sandberg,County Engineer Mike Wilhelmi,St.Croix Bridge Coalition Note1:This meeting was part of a city council work session and not a formal council meeting.As such no formal actions were or can be taken by the council. Opinions were shared in an open public forum during this meeting but no binding actions were taken. Note2:This brief meeting summary provides a general overview of the discussions that occurred at this meeting and are not meant to be detailed meeting minutes of the discussions. 1. Call to Order and Introductions Mayor Beaudet opened the meeting as a City Council work session and welcomed participants. Participants introduced themselves. 2. Welcome/remarks Beth asked for general comments from the group. Scott reiterated need to work together to resolve, MnDOT flexibility where we can be and not wanting to leave the city in a bad spot. Beth reviewed the meeting#1 summary 3. Overview of Meeting Process—Beth reiterated the 3 meeting process 1 • Meeting 1—Review information, issues and constraints: "Get everyone on the same page" • Meeting 2—Identify and evaluate options, look for creative feasible solutions • Meeting 3—Determine framework;identify mechanism to document agreement; identify next steps to finalize the details 4. Review of meeting#2 handouts Adam overviewed the meeting materials,including; • December 18,2011 letter-Vierling to Josephson—Mark reviewed content of this letter with group. • Oak Park Heights Benefits due to the Project list(prepared by MnDOT) • Loop Trail,Walks and Trails of the St Croix River Crossing Project • Cost Discussion Area matrix and specific funding program handouts were covered later in meeting. Adam discussed status of 30%utility plan development. City and MnDOT staff met on December 14th to exchange utility information and discuss scope of work needed to develop 30%utility plan. The goal of the 30%utility plan is to determine what city utilities might be impacted by the project, how the city wants to resolve those the utility conflicts,what if any utility betterment's the city would like to see with the project, preliminary quantities and a good preliminary cost estimate for city utilities. MnDOT has requested city concurrence on existing utility base map information. MnDOT is currently working on identifying potential utility conflicts. MnDOT will need direction from the City as to how conflicts should be addressed and what additional betterments are requested by the City. Council needs to provide further direction to city staff to continue this coordination effort. Adam discussed 1995 MOU;question was asked at meeting#1,what has changed since 1995. The 1995 MOU is in the 3-ring meeting binder under tab#16. There are 25 items covered in the 1995 MOU many of them are design related or no longer relevant to the current project(example, 1995 MOU item#9-Park and Ride facility which is no longer part of the project). The following 1995 MOU items were discussed: Item#2—Trailways"... extent possible so as to coordinate with the city's existing trailway,sidewalk and pedestrian traffic plans"—trail/sidewalk on the current layout may not be consistent with current city trail plan. City trail plan needs to be reviewed further. Item#8—Traffic Lights on Hwy 95—state in 1995 agreed to pursue a cost exception to policy but could not guarantee one. City currently has identified signal costs,MnDOT is looking into policy exception for those costs but this is a difficult policy area for the state since it is applied consistently state wide. Item#16—City Utilities Disrupted by Construction—1995 MOU provided that state would reimburse city for consulting engineer's time for design information. The 1995 MOU commitment is contrary 2 Oak Park Heights—MnDOT Discussion of St. Croix River Crossing Local City Cost Issues Notes from 12/28/11 meeting, B. Bartz Flip Chart notes Sanitary Sewer at Oakgreen-Greeley:concern that a significant portion of the sewer line will need to be relocated due to changes in the invert location. City would like clarification if extensive additional relocation is needed to mitigate project conflict. Identification of staging areas: City planning developing soccer fields and other park amenities at Moelter site. Identification of project construction staging areas should take park plans into consideration. Follow-up needed regarding aesthetic design of signal poles,street and trail lighting. Additional design issues identified during matrix discussion: 1) Snow storage concerns along 60th Street, between trail and roadway 2) Traffic signal pedestrian indications,questions about count down timer *** 5 S A A S 9 :. ;M a.u..S 31f10N 03UN3d3Ud 3 i ill(,:!.1 1 ,'R. ".l L10AV1 Ai1111113A0W 15L13 0350d01k 111$ It DWI.m 9NISSOfD a3nm MOa0'IS 1� „1g i o NW'S1H9I3H NI1Vd)IVO 11 I I @ U /' _\ . / / /� �� / / / 3 / I° W'311�WH..rp. /' g B R ° a Lq'� , / < ^ gk1 yg�� F m 1J ,,......40;-,...- °�'�s�ij / c / 1/ / 3 3 3 a: 1�2�5 N p�{{ Gz Cz L Q°'b ��nb S n i , 1)j ___--1 ' , --;.„... `, \V ..-• • --- ---- , ' I-- * 0..... .,_ . \,_1 \es \ , \ I , \ r_ roof 0., _L, 40,0000-444,,, ,, ,...,,,,,,\_al_ — y — i- �I '11' ' . N a✓w�as Wad - — �,x.__—I T L A 2R a g 'I 1 I :I 1 1 3- AI , -I I z � i i 1 I S I5 ��ro=� - - — — -- ICI Al al ;1 II {{� yy yg N ' / 1, I A I Ti II . a1= — �� " � is I � --- 62 / t /apy �L J � � � ,_, —----., 7 f /„.„ , , „p0 , ,, _ r. ! 1$III t y,_J—_J-\\l — j - ...„,...„: 7,,, 7, 7.. �/ U kT 1 X11. _ __L -- ," � ----T-7— — al 11 ; / �� r pi/t -= r\� t� _�' ni ,,Jar\ //� %/� ■ n� ./t4 i ) /)-, 1, I,1‘,.'--- G, we man.notNf/[ a,wm0nnorsnn,uanb9[■axcnwrMCOSna i A A g g — O— — -.- IM01103tlN3i371d l CO W N 11 14 r.c 1.10AY1 ALLILLl13AOW 1SNIi 03S0dadd v. 'JNISSOa l a3ARl XIOa0'1S 61 a € M °. :� NW'S1H9IJH JI2i dd H d0 4 @ a b l_ i_ I ` Y �'„ .tea--_� I\ m >" I I `Ji � -- tp �I _ +-_ _—L Q 7:10, \ `I 53 7 r — t 1 11314 �I 51 II rn F \ L,,R 3 E �c.i_. ly-2 11 .5 ,1 11 I 11 i ; i ii,7 7-5,i \ I 1•A a s t' i 1. A ;J� V�� A\-:A � � 6 € � � 1 1 I I I n � t/ � � L iiilit L 0. \ 1 \I _-i --- r. nl FilO/ /� / /1 I Q r "'�. / II 1/} / l lI /n o— ♦ i - ♦, -�,L>-1 1-��- a s A I I o f ', I1 �N I { , / 1 I N S ♦ A\ ---1 • I I -7-c3.7 ► :1 g.."_772,._,_ —H /// / 2-L/ , %m /�� ' --", — I I I ( �c ,1 4/, // 1 / ' % �? / � ; , k II / f—Il �O� / '/,..1,-----------}:*� — Q 73/v —\ 1 I I 1 1 IiI 1 III I I U oOnr y r �t J 8di "'-� �— —I�>I 1 1 111 A�\r U 1 �I III —1 >d> 1 b 1 1 / 1 I I I }� 13 A/ / I 1 \ F ) I I \ , 127, l i /I� / it Iv '+ I\ \°s / 11 , 11 ' III /. ll 11y ( �. 1 /� ( is `. _ A Z / Ir� / ' 1 ' 1 1l►t / t-,.11, II Ji ivo,p V j�� , , , I l+,,' 1 1 '1 ��, I / 11 im f 111 / `.�+ � �' a � I 'J h 1A �I 11 1 / I S III •i, ''�, \, . �\ -,\ / ..., I �� I II 1 1 A ■ ' �-1 �// / / ►�� m vIv ��t►s� U \\\\�� i\V I , IUI 1 I�, '* � II II 1 / l l I�aI. II i S';° '\;^ i % oU \ \ s\ �\ \ h\v\ ''},1 .� * \i EI\ II I V / /g A/ : /h• g v/' y -- '$ v °w V it 1 0r 1, `P.��Sr''I r- I yIv 1 v 1 (✓ ,- 1/ /) / 1� 1 s Nz �\ 1^ A NI 1I I ,v iA ti / \\ w F \ I\ F 1 1 1r}'\ / I. \\\\ \ ; 1 Z V I I I 7 ' 1 I \ �1 \ 1 1 1 0 / I 1",2 / ; CI)" k, .IvA 0 11iA V A \ ;A ' . • ,__—> ;I •I ,yl 1 \ III �t li 11 * ' 51 , a t Q �� I V ,v '' 1\ 1 U \\ . of 11 ■ 1'1 1 \ y I. z,.1d , I ,! g q oCO;F- vvv .� °z \ 1V A�A- Ai AvvAA 1 i IV ,,•t' vvv 1 0 �V . A,i yAv A \ \ ��\ fl,\ v A �I . \ fir' I �,�� ''1\ ♦I �� ...�.�� ® A #� \ 1\� .1. � I I �\ l 1+�— r±- v y t 1 1 1 1 I //f12, A v 1, v , \\ y / A 4,„ •.., Z �-�.��. c�J 96 I / Y i�� is +I _ ,:.^ , v Q `�' I / I iO /oh / 1 i //vigil , , I\ \1 \ \ /il�' �`. \, alp. : / / / o '/--; �, / ,\i i \ /k / i A '� . Q ∎ \ rS -r / / >-- l \•I 0V\v_ /:/ ✓ - U • r 2 • ; /l2$I Jj l . %n i�/// , i_/8 �i` f _ JI � I� . �/ i \ ` j ' � �l , _ _ �M v I I, �'Z / //�/G'; ,/ / Q 1 I ' v'1 �1m ' / / � � / —% � y i °' .51,t1 i i 1 --F - \ j.- ^l ''' -,..:. /\` y—843—- , II 1 1 II 1 1 \ I / ,/ waua awrc/a 1.rwxsm.cn1•man MIOK60.wAIK6A n v $ re fk1 - miiptT ✓ ass, 5A1/5")-" 4.b14 &0 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 June 20'x',2012 i'eip R.h4,f Boloftt : coo diem Senator Amy Klobuchar Office of U.S.Senator Amy Klobuchar(MN) '"` 2-i D STo!000 302 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Congresswoman Michele Bachmann 1.4-,1-0 ' o5 f 7 7 333Y Washington Office of; g- 103 Cannon HOB ,1-eb5) t ----J�4� 73r 5Z/C ° Washington,DC 20515 oi/ ,,,.t l,�fk' 1 %I:lio e(-----• Pii'( -79,a6y?.,0'6177/ c-e-}/ . V'2 frS RE: Use of$3.66 Million Allocation-St.Croix River Crossing: Dear Senator Klobuchar and Representative Bachmann, With the recent enactment of legislation exempting the St.Croix River Crossing from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,the City of Oak Park Heights remains uncertain on how major utility relocation costs will be funded. At this time,the City anticipates receiving construction plans from the Minnesota Department to Transportation(MNDOT)to which the City needs to review to determine utility and other conflicts.Accordingly,the City is seeking specific clarification on this recent federal action as it relates to funding for these City utilities. Specifically,the$3.66 million dollar allocation originally passed in the 2005 Transportation Bill for Oak Park Heights'utility relocation was understood to be an `earmark' specifically deserted to the City's costs;the City asks that your offices verify that these dollars'�emain as originally intended for tie`City- anic subject only to the 20 percent match requirements. The City also asks that you speak with MNDOT and impart upon their staff that these funds shall be made available for City utility relocation and replacement costs,without the customary HPP or other MNDOT imposed restrictions. You :-,istance on this matter would greatly assist the City's ability to evaluate in a timely fashion the p :ns t i be - omitted to the City in the coming weeks. Si erel,* r--c J/ministrator son, City • Cc: Sen. Al Franker,(MN) Mr.John Chiglo,D4NDOT Weekly Notes ii 17 of 32 11/22/11 Oak Park Heights—Mn/DOT St. Croix River Crossing Local City Cost Issues • Meeting Materials 1) Meeting 1 —November 22, 2001 a) Agenda b) Project Layout and mitigation table c) Project Schedule d) Project Cost Summary e) Project Funding&HPP funding summary f) Utility Terms/descriptions g) Cost areas for city due to project h) Local Project Cost Summary 2) Meeting 2—December 28, 2012 3) Meeting 3—January 19, 2012 Cost Related Information 4) Oak Park Heights—Mn/DOT St. Croix River Crossing Project Issues (10/2/09) 5) St. Croix River Crossing Project Utilities (7/31/06) 6) Projected Oak Park Heights Local Costs (11/4/09) • 7) Mn/DOT Cost exception letter(10/6/06) 8) Proposed Traffic Signal Construction Cost/Maintenance Responsibilities (5/2/06) 9) TH 36 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Relocation—Bonestroo - August 17, 2011 10) Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights (11/10/11) 11) Mn/DOT Cost Participation Policy 12) Mn/DOT long-form utility permit& 1959 permit text 13) Sample—TH 5 interchange Project(1997) 14) Sample - Signal Agreement(Chaska—2010) Municipal Consent information 15) City Resolution 95-08-39 (August 14, 1995) 16) MOU signed by city(8-15-95) and Mn/DOT (9-7-95) 17) Mn/DOT narrative of differences between 1995 and 2005 layouts (dated 5-3-07) 18) Findings of Fact and Conclusions -Washington County Court—Oct. 18, 2007 19) OPH to Mn/DOT letter—Project Status—November 6,2007 20) Mn/DOT to OPH letter—Municipal consent—June 30, 2008 21) Stillwater Municipal Consent and MOU(10/31/06) 22) Bayport Municipal Consent and MOU(1/8/07) Mn Statutes and Administrative Rules 23) MN Statute 161.17— 161.177 (pre 2001 Municipal consent Statute—Old Law) 24) MN Statute 161.162— 161-165 (post 2001 Municipal consent Statute—New Law) • 25) MN Statute 161.45—46 (Utilities) 26) Administrative Rules 8810.3100—8810.3600(Utilities) 27) MN Statute 174.52 (Local Road Improvement Fund) Page 1 of 2 1 28) Misc. Correspondence a) OPH-February 2, 2010—Possible Funding for Utility Relocations—City Cost Share • b) OPH- September 17, 2010—Lookout Trail turn-back idea rejection c) Mn/DOT - September 9, 2011 —comments on utility study d) OPH-October 7,2011 —comments on 9/11/11 letter e) Mn/DOT -November 14, 2011 —response to 10/7/11 letter • • Page 2 of 2 • Oak Park Heights—MnDOT: Discussion of St. Croix Agreement Meeting 1: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 Location: Boutwells Landing Auditorium B Time: 7:00—9:00 PM Agenda 1. Welcome/Introductions—Scott McBride 2. Discussion Purpose/Goals—Beth Bartz Purpose: Identify key principals of a cost-participation framework between Oak Park Heights and MnDOT addressing utility,signals,stormwater and maintenance issues. The purpose of this process is NOT to negotiate in language or specific dollar amounts a formal agreement, but rather the context of a framework from which a formal agreement can be negotiated. Goals: • Ensure that all participants understand the definitions,statutes, policies,cost estimates, maintenance concerns,financial constraints,and other information pertinent to the • discussion. • Identify approaches and/or resources that may provide new insights to a mutually- agreeable framework • To conduct a respectful discussion that will be productive in moving toward a workable solution for both Oak Park Heights and MnDOT for the St.Croix River Crossing Project. 3. Overview of Meeting Process—Beth Bartz • Meeting 1—Review information, issues and constraints: "Ge:everyone on the same page" • Meeting 2—Identify and evaluate options,look for creative feasible solutions • Meeting 3—Determine framework; identify mechanism to document agreement; identify next steps to finalize the details 4. Ground Rules—Beth Bartz • Lead participants will be the Oak Park Heights City Council arid Mayor,the MnDOT District Engineer,the MnDOT East Area Engineer,Washington County Commissioner and the State Senator and State Representative;additional staff from these organizations may serve as resources to these participants but will not directly participate in the dialog. • Members of the public and the media will have the opportunity to observe the dialog; however,they will not participate in the meetings. The agencies may choose individually to solicit input from the public or interested stakeholders and bring that information to the • discussion. • • The discussion will address only the issues related to local cost participation in the •. construction and maintenance of utilities,signals, roadways,trails,stormwater ponds, landscaping features and other public infrastructure items within the Oak Park Heights area of the St.Croix River Crossing Project as currently proposed. Other issues raised during the discussion may be tracked separately to be addressed at a later date. Broader project issues such as the EIS related topics will not be addressed within the three meeting process. • All participants are expected to engage in respectful, productive dialog targeted toward moving forward toward resolution of cost agreement issues. 5. Summary of concerns and interests:Oak Park Heights 6. Summary of concerns and interests: MnDOT—Scott McBride 7. Background on statutes, policies, HPP funding, etc.—Adam Josephson 8. Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Report,dated 11/10/11 9. Identified Cost and Maintenance issues—Adam Josephson 10. Summary of Meeting 1 • 11. Next Steps/Assignments/Agenda for Meeting 2 *** • .,.. N 41( N • to L N 0 41( El io Li El L LI M O N 0 2 El 2 L 0 0 ou iao. ,' %% otpARio LJ 0 a m 91( z ,0 O TI N 0 m f S. d E m o O O O N O a � C v y O d O a G _ C C O v j p i O .f,-. a uJ O a y = 0 D a 0 V 0 5 _ O Q O o O M p p O O 3 O O! Q a M • d V C -� LL v N 1 an �-ov rn • • s c c of h� Iuuj1 I M I N N E S O T A A N D W I S C O N S I N D E P A R T M E N T S O F T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 0 : f)' '' 4Vel /0cf4it ' ' r- 1.- le% 'l';''' I(JC) _ ,, tk t- r „. . . . Y r,1 ` t liglit....a r .`� : i �I Aiii, ��iii y -IINIIII t ST JOSE II ST.JOSEPH r II si V‘ e ` tI•IIital VV ' CF1 1-F:F ? K . .s r iele r<d•+ Aher we B 1 a-m �ne9)„ " c7r:g / IliilIrall or Ti. 1.i_ , •« r9�ej • -gilt 11,11$104 • 1� r � , OAK PARK 4,._` t — �] L i or ors t Total Project Cost Estimate* (1)TH 36-Oakgreen/Greeley Intersection $15,300,000 (2)Minnesota Approach $65,000,000 (3)River Bridge $292,100,000 (4)Wisconsin Approach $38,400000 % CONSTRUCTION COST SUBTOTAL $410,800,000 `� Right of Way $31,400,000 �U Mitigation Estimate $26,200,000 Contingency/Risk $110,000,000 \' 78\--;;) Engineering $55,000,000 �� PROJECT TOTAL $633,400,000 0\! '. (Potential Cost Range $574-690M) STATE SPLITS O Minnesota Potential Cost Range $320-380M III �` ��j. Wisconsin Potential Cost Range $250-310M *Cost inflated to mid point of construction in 2015(2011 costs+17%) W W W . D O T . S T A T E . M N . 11 S / M E T R O / P R O J E C T S / $ T C R O I X • November 2011 St Croix River Crossing Proposed Funding Mn/DOT currently plans to use Federal Formula Funds $160Me 'V' �{ 3t l State Bond Funds $203M Total: $363M Note:Actual funding amounts and sources will adjusted at time they are required High Priority Program (HPP)funds were provided to the project in the Safe,Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:A Legacy for Users(SAFETEA-LU) in 2005. MN191—Authorized amount$4,000,000 : Actual obligated amount$3,599,601 for"ROW acquisition and Utility relocation..." These dollars are planned to be used to offset city utility design and construction costs. The funds provide for reimbursement of 80%of the "eligible" costs and the remaining 20%is a city • requirement. Costs that are not eligible are 100%city costs, betterments fall into this 100% category. MN 126—Authorized amount$9,000,000 : Actual obligated amount$8,099,099 for"Design,construct, and acquire right-of-way for the St Croix river Crossing in Stillwater. These dollars to date have been spent on R/W acquisition and mitigation items related to the bridge project. Mn/DOT has provided the match funds. MN126—Authorized amount$400,000 : Actual obligated amount$359,960 The original bill directed a "TH 36—Stillwater Bridge;cut-and-cover approach to the river Ils crossing" study, language changes in 2008 provided for a more general study. The current bill language is"Preliminary design and study of long-term roadway approach alternatives to the TH36/SH 64 St Croix River Crossing Project." 14The HPP funds are 80/20 meaning the 80%federal funds($359,960)will require a 20%local match($89,990)for a study total of about$450,000. FHWA determines what is"eligible"to utilize these funds. 4110 • Utility Terms/Descriptions November 2011 Utilities by Permit—utilities may be permitted in trunk highway right-of-way. For non- interstate (i.e. Trunk Highway) R/W's, if the transportation department has a project the affects a utility then the owner of the utility must resolve that impact and work done without any cost whatsoever to the state. First Move-the state may reimburse a municipality for the cost of the first relocation of a municipally owned utility located within limits of a municipal street at the time the street was taken over by the state as a trunk highway. (8810.3300, Subp. 3) Betterments—A"Betterment" occurs when the relocated utility is upgraded or replaced with a functionally superior facilities. �. Example 1) replacing a 6" pipe with a 9" pipe,the increased pipe size is a betterment Example 2) replacing a utility that is not impacted by construction, if project impacts 1000' of water main and the city decides to replace 1500',the additional 500' would be a betterment. Interstate Highways and Non-interstate Highways (i.e.Trunk Highways)—utility relocation costs are treated differently under the state statutes. Mn/DOT pays for utility relocations along interstates and utilities pay for relocations along non-interstate routes. High Priority Program (HPP)funds were provided to the project in the Safe,Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:A Legacy for Users(SAFETEA-LU) in 2005. One of the appropriations (MN191) provides$4,000,000 for"ROW acquisition and Utility relocation..." These dollars are planned to be used to offset city utility design and construction costs. The funds provide for reimbursement of 80%of the"eligible"costs and the remaining 20%is a city requirement. Costs that are not eligible are 100%city costs, betterments fall into this 100%category. 4� 41,,,E Lump-Sum Settlement(MN 161.46,Subd. 3)—The"Commissioner may enter into agreements with a Gee utility for the relocation of utility facilities providing for the payment by the state of a lump sum based on the estimated cost of the relocation when the lump sum so agreed upon does not exceed$100,000." Summary of cost categories for city utilities First Move—100%state Betterments—100%city(not HPP eligible) City Utilities in R/W by permit—100%city; however reimbursed with 80%HPP and 20%city match • November 2011 Cost areas for the city due to the project • 1) Utilities—per state statute,City sanitary and water main utilities can be located in state right-of- way but if they are impacted by a project the utility owner(the city) needs to relocate conflicting utilities at their expense. 2) Utility Design—per state statute,the city will need to design their own utility relocation plans, the eligible costs can be covered with HPP funds and the required 20% match would be the city's responsibility. 3) Storm water ponds—Mn/DOT plans to use HPP$'s to offset local costs in the storm water ponds and has approved a policy exception to cover the 20%city match requirement with state funds. 4) TrafficSignals—per Mn/DOT policy, local governments(city and county) pay a portion of a signal pro-rated by approach legs. Mn/DOT owns over 3,000 signals around the state,this policy has been uniformly applied to all cities and counties around the state. 5) Construction Engineering—per Mn/DOT policy,the city will be responsible for an 8% construction engineering expense based on the city's local project cost amount. 6) Maintenance a. Signals—Mn/DOT requires local governments to cover minor signal maintenance and power. b. Storm water ponds-Mn/DOT allocates future pond maintenance costs based on contributing flows to the pond (example if pond is dredged out in 20 years the cost would be split at the time based on contributing flows from the state,county and city. • c. 60th St(south frontage road)—Mn/DOT currently owns and maintains the south frontage road,the project will rebuild the road,since these types of roads primarily serve a local purpose, Mn/DOT prefers to turn-back these roads to local authorities. d. Lookout Trail (old Hwy 212)-Mn/DOT currently owns and maintains Lookout Trail, which was Hwy 212 until 1960,this roadway functions as a city street, Mn/DOT has proposed to turn-back the road with funds for the city to improve the roadway. e. Trails and Sidewalks are being constructed with the project,along the south side of 60th St.,the Loop Trail and other areas. These facilities primarily serve local residents. The Loop Trail could be considered a regional asset. The project would construct the trails/sidewalks and then Mn/DOT proposes to have the cities and/or counties own and maintain them. f. Landscaping is proposed as part of the project, in areas that are landscaped and not retained as state ownership,the maintenance responsibility would be transferred to the new owner(example,trees planted along 60th Street, if the FR is turned back to the city, the landscaping in the FR R/W would also be part of the turn-back and become a city responsibility). • e-I 01 C 01 N h. • o co CO l0 rr N co co O i N r N ^ e-I L0 I.0 -I a ■ 0 .-I O1 0 '• 0 N to N • 1 N M . ` M vt t0 N ch ■ • ;. N ! �" RS 0 0n m0 00 l0 M N tri Ni 4-, a In Tr 00 co N ko to 0_ In N M ri ri M E = ri N N :Fr to N N +A- >. l0 L 0 CO 0 E ,? +; N _ •C E a., U +' c VI Cn O 0 •'�' 0 \ 3 a + cn cV U N 0 1n to o \ N to U :a a o0 0. o_ +.• c = ri = = 0 • • O pip 00 CO C L. LA CL o U X01 IN0 N O N Ol Tr 01 `i In O u1 N In co M M O J ny 1n n 01 Q1 V N N cn 'Cr 4..J all M M Cr 0 N M a ri M M bA U^ cv •0) N = CJ w 01 L rMi U \ c. 0 ate-+ CL N �c V) 7-14 CO w c v O O *' m N ,a U to -0 C o*o O Y C co -0 f0 w E co w E U _0 N L 4, C 4, N CO C N ,-1 f0 C C •Eo W N 0) O C +.+ N E of a U ' ' L • N v C O N a� 3 iv e CO cv co V L LL c R C H f0 O H cn IL— c to U h 0 0 0 U 0 U • Oak Park Heights—MnDOT: Discussion of St. Croix Agreement Meeting 2: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 Location: Boutwells Landing Auditorium B Time: 7:00—9:00 PM Agenda 1. Call Council Work Session to Order—Mayor Beaudet 2. Welcome/remarks—Beth Bartz 3. Overview of Meeting Process—Beth Bartz • Meeting 1—Review information, issues and constraints: "Get everyone on the same page" • Meeting 2—Identify and evaluate options, look for creative feasible solutions • Meeting 3—Determine framework; identify mechanism to document agreement; identify next steps to finalize the details 4. Review of meeting#1 on Nov 22nd and meeting summary—Beth Bartz —'' • Reason's to say yes • • Project Trails and connections • 30%utility design plan status • 1995 MOU 5. Identify and evaluate options 6. Determine feasible options to continue to pursue 7. Summary of Meeting 2 8. Next Steps/Assignments/Agenda for Meeting 3—date? 9. Close Council Work Session *** 1111 S Meeting#1—Brief Summary Oak Park Heights—MnDOT discussions Tuesday- November 22, 2011 Attendees (lead participants) Dave Beaudet Les Abrahamson Mary McComber Mark Swenson Mike Runk Ted Lillie Gary Kriesel Beth Bartz Scott McBride Adam Josephson Attendees (staff and other) Eric Johnson, City Administrator Mark Vierling, City Attorney Chris Long, City Engineer Maryanne Kelly-Sonnek, MnDOT Marilyn Remer, MnDOT Todd Clarkowski, MnDOT Wayne Sandberg, County Engineer • Mike Wilhelmi, St. Croix Bridge Coalition Note1:This meeting was part of a city council work session and not a formal council meeting. As such no formal actions were or can be taken by the council. Opinions were shared in an open public forum during this meeting but no binding actions were taken. Note2:This brief meeting summary provides a general overview of the discussions that occurred at this meeting and are not meant to be detailed meeting minutes of the discussions. 1. Welcome and Introductions Mayor Beaudet opened the meeting as a City Council work session and welcomed all participants. Participants introduced themselves. Scott McBride introduced Beth Bartz, who will serve as the facilitator for the process. 2. Purpose/Goals Beth reviewed the purpose and goals as listed on the project agenda. She reminded group that the purpose of this process in not to negotiate in language or specific dollar amounts a formal • agreement, but rather develop the framework from which a formal agreement can be negotiated. 1 3. Overview of Meeting Process Beth explained that the first meeting will focus on reviewing information;the second on identifying and evaluating options, and the third on determining the framework and identifying steps to implementing an agreement. Beth asked group to consider Steven Covey quote "Seek first to understand." 4. Ground Rules Beth reviewed the ground rules for the discussion process as listed on the agenda. 5. Summary of concerns and interests: Oak Park Heights Les Abrahamson distributed and reviewed the handout "Approximate Listing of issues—St Croix River Crossing" concerning costs, maintenance, equity and design issues; Issues below the first seven bullets with the exception of"equity"were agreed to be outside of the meeting purpose and will be discussed at a later time; additional topics for later discussion also identified were staging area issues and construction impacts, particularly vibration. • City needs better project cost information to make good decisions • City Council needs to be responsible to citizens by justifying benefits in order to agree to initial cost and on-going maintenance responsibilities. • • Regional project—City feels they are disproportionately burdened by project costs and believe local costs should be shared more equitably • 1995 MOU needs to be reviewed, what has changed since then? 6. Summary of concerns and interests: MnDOT Scott McBride made the following points on behalf of MnDOT: • MnDOT can't solve these issues for the City nor can the City solve them on its own; we need to work together to resolve. • Do not want to leave city in a bad spot, it is timely that these issues be resolved • Local cost participation in MnDOT projects is shaped by state statutes (legal restrictions on what MnDOT can or cannot do) and MnDOT policies (put in place to ensure equity across the state in a wide variety of projects). We will be as flexible as we can with our policies to reduce city costs; state statute restrictions will preclude some options. • The City, as the utility owner, per state statute is responsible for determining how to adjust affected utilities in state R/W and the costs, available HPP funds will help reduce those costs. Possible Framework Option:Review of cost participation policies in place when 1995 • municipal consent was granted may provide an avenue for flexibility. 2 • 7. Background on statutes, policies, HPP funding, etc. —Adam Josephson Adam reviewed current project information regarding layout, mitigation plan, schedule and funding. Available High Priority Program (HPP)funds were reviewed: • MN191 $3.6M obligated for right of way acquisition and utility relocation—these funds are available to City for"eligible costs"with a 20% local match. "Betterment" costs are not eligible. (Defined later.). A state/city agreement needs to be executed before costs can be incurred and reimbursed. • MN217 $8.1M obligated for design, construction and right of way costs. MnDOT has been spending these funds for right of way acquisition and mitigation efforts. Required 20% match has been provided by MnDOT. • MN126 $360,000 obligated for"preliminary design and study of long-term roadway approach alternatives" requires a $90,000 local match. Note: Eligibility for these funds is determined by FHWA. Possible Framework Option:Explore possibility of MN191 funds being converted to funds which would not require a local match. • Adam reviewed definitions of"Utilities by Permit," "First Move," and "Betterment" under state statutes. Betterments are not HPP eligible per FHWA. Utilities by Permit and impacted by the project may be eligible for HPP funding. First Move costs are a state responsibility. 8. Estimated cost impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Report—dated 11/10/11 Oak Park Heights presented a summary of"St. Croix River Crossing Project: Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights, November 10, 2011." This cost estimate included direct up-front costs, delayed long-term costs- 20 year horizon, and direct incurred costs to date. The Study looked at four scenarios with estimates ranging from $7- $18 million. 9. Identified cost and maintenance issues—Adam Josephson Adam reviewed a list of anticipated Oak Park Heights utility and up-front costs which MnDOT has estimated at$3.3M, available HPP funds reduce estimated city costs to under$1,000,000. MnDOT did not estimate long-term maintenance costs. Possible Framework Option:Agreed that determination of which utility work is a "betterment"(not eligible for HPP)versus a utility relocation eligible for HPP is worth a closer • look given current City standards for utility construction. 3 Agreed that MnDOT will meet with Oak Park Heights staff to conduct a more detailed review of • the utility plan and determinations of"first move" "utility by permit" and "betterment." Council needs to discuss and direct staff accordingly to work with MnDOT in this effort. 10. Summary of Meeting 1 Meeting participants shared new information they had learned or insights obtained during the first meeting. 11. Next Steps • MnDOT agreed to look further into policy to determine if there is any discussion of cost participation in context of regional benefit. • MnDOT will send another copy of the utility layout to the City. • Better define city utility costs, current numbers based on discussions from 2006 and recent city review of project costs. City and State will work together to develop "30% utility design"to better define impacts, betterments and costs for city utilities. • City will determine extent of utility work needed to address utility conflicts, including if utilities will remain in state R/W by permit or moved off state R/W to new easement areas. • Meeting#2 will look at options to resolve costs. Any option ideas prior to meeting • should be directed to Eric and Adam; City Council members please do not comment on each other's submissions prior to meeting due to concerns about open meeting law (refer any questions about this to Eric Johnson). Meeting#2—December 28,2011—7:00—9:00 PM - Boutwells Landing—discussion of possible funding options. Mayor Beaudet closed the work session. Attached • City handout—Approximate Listing of Issues—St Croix River Crossing (11/22/11) • Flip Chart Notes from Nov 22nd meeting Also distributed at Meeting#1 • • 3-Ring binder with meeting materials and agenda 4 • • • Mn Statute 161.46—see tab#25 in 3-ring binder • MnDOT Cost exception letter dated October 6, 2006—see tab#7 in 3-ring binder • Estimated Cost Impacts to the City—report dated November 10, 2011—correction noted on page 15 of 36—see tab#10 in 3-ring binder *** • • 5 Oak Park Heights—MnDOT Discussion of St. Croix River Crossing Local City Cost Issues • Notes from 11/22/11 meeting, B. Bartz Flip chart notes Clarify: Xcel responsibility for expenses for burying of utilities Options - HPP eligibility for"betterments"? - Convert HPP funds from 80/20 match to 100%? - What constitutes "betterment"? - Re: frontage road turn-back—can replaced pipe just be meeting city policy rather than be termed a betterment? - Suggested detailed review of utility layout—revisit "betterment areas"—gray area - Could Osgood to Oakgreen pipes be lined? Would this place it in a different category? Design questions: - Does proposed trail connect to any regional facilities (believe there is a regional trail on the TH 5 corridor) - Could the trail along south frontage road become a sidewalk instead? If this is required as part of a Mn/DOT facility why would City be responsible for maintenance and later • replacement? • 6 ECKBERGI,s.-a LAMVLERS ► • \T FORtiI 'i ht 1 1 114 Stillwater Office: 1809 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater,Minnesota 55082 Writer's Direct Dial (651) 439-2878 (651)351-2118 Fax(651) 439-2923 Writer's Email Hudson Office: mvierling@eckberglammers.com 430 Second Street December 28,2011 Hudson,Wisconsin 54016 (715) 386-3733 Fax(715) 386-6456 Mr.Adam Josephson www.ectberglammers.com East Area Manager--MnDOT Metropolitan District Water's Edge Building 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 Re: Oak Park Heights—MN/DOT Discussions Regarding Truck Highway 36 Improvements—St. Croix River Crossing Our File No.: 01501-17683 Dear Adam: • A copy of your draft Minutes of the meeting of November 22, 2011 have forwarded to me by Eric Johnson. With regard to your Note 1 in the Minutes, I appreciate the effort taken to note in specific relative to the meeting that the meeting itself was part of the city work session not a formal council meeting and thus no formal action can or would be taken by the counsel. In pursuit of further clarity and in an effort to set a framework for future beneficial discussions, it is the expectation of the City of Oak Park Heights that neither MN/DOT nor the City or their personnel would make any formal statements to the press or public representing that any agreement, in part or total may have been reached from these discussions that will be ongoing unless or until a joint statement to that effect is issued by both MN/DOT and the City. In the past there have been difficulties experienced as a result of impromptu communications in this very sensitive topic between MN/DOT and the City and we earnestly desire to avoid any such statements,misunderstandings, or problems that flow from them. We trust that you agree with this position, but if the agency for any reason does not, certainly we can discuss that this evening when we gather again. Best wishes to you and your family for the New Year! Yours M. k J.Vierling Oak - . eights City Attorney MJV/jlp cc: Mr. Eric Johnson,City Administrator • EC'KRERG. l..\\111ERS, BRIC;CS. WO).I t 14 \'IERLIN(;, 1'1.Y Family Law r Divorce • Business and Commercial Law • Criminal Law • Personal Injury/Wrongful Death Estate Planning/Probate • Real Estate • Land Use Law • Mediation • Municipal Law • Civil Litigation Oak Park Heights Benefits due to the St Croix River Crossing Project (Prepared by MnDOT for 12/28/11 meeting) ✓ An improved Hwy 36 corridor and river crossing will make Hwy 36 a more reliable and safer corridor,which will be better for residents,commuters, businesses and customers in the area and in the City of Oak Park Heights. ✓ Improvements to the Hwy 36 intersections at Oakgreen and Osgood,which are primary access points to the city,will benefit city residents and businesses. ✓ An improved and widened 60th Street will benefit businesses,customers and residents along the south frontage road. ✓ A new river crossing improves access to/from western Wisconsin and a significant population that work and frequent Oak Park Height's businesses. ✓ Upgraded transportation facilities will improve the economic climate for the area and city. ✓ The new Hwy 36/95 interchange provides direct ramp connections between Hwy 36 and Hwy 95 (south)and will divert traffic out of the lower Oak Park Heights residential neighborhood that 411 currently uses Stagecoach Trail. ✓ The new trails that are planned with the project and linkages to current trails will provide a regional attraction that will draw users and customers to the area, as well as, provide facilities that will serve city residents. ✓ Water quality treatment facilities planned with the project will improve water quality in the area and in the river. ✓ Current crash rates are higher than the metropolitan average, improved facilities will reduce the number of crashes and their severity which will benefit city residents and all users. ✓ If the project is not built the area will remain clogged with congestion which is detrimental to the quality of life and livability of the area. ✓ If the condition of the lift bridge ever gets to the point that it had to be closed, not having a river crossing in this area will have detrimental impacts to the region,the area, city residents and city businesses. • 12/28/11 Loop Trail, walks and trails of the St. Croix River Crossing Project 12/12/11 The St. Croix River Crossing Project has accommodated bicycle and pedestrian users while considering the social, economic and environmental issues. The 2004 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement provides some context for these trail issues, while the 2006 Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement identifies the need for construction of a Loop Trail connecting the existing Lift Bridge to the new river crossing bridge. The 2007 Visual Quality Manual provides aesthetic design guidance for the Loop Trail and other trails planned with the project. The attached Trail Graphic shows the Loop Trail,trails and walks existing and planned to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians in the area. The trail components and supporting infrastructure of the St. Croix River Crossing project should realize high volumes of utilization from users both locally and regionally, as well as intrastate and interstate bicycle travelers. This conclusion is based on the unique historical, natural, cultural, recreational and community based resources of the St. Croix River Valley area and the surrounding communities in Minnesota and Wisconsin that will serve to draw trail users of varied interests and origins. The following provide additional reasons to support this conclusion: • The surrounding communities have a large population base that local use alone will be significant as this loop facility will provide a unique opportunity for residents to recreate and enjoy the river and its amenities. The trail will be an attractive distance for many to utilize and afford many different user interests in multiple ways to experience the trail. • Stillwater and the surrounding communities are already a destination for travelers, as is the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. It is expected that trail users will view the loop trail as an attractive amenity. The Loop Trail gives visitors an option to take a short hike or bike ride or to make a longer trip by connecting to the local trail systems of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Bayport,Town of St.Joseph,St. Croix and Washington Counties. • Trails can be generators of economic activity. A 2009 study by the University of Minnesota Tourism Center estimated that trail users (including residents and visitors) contributed to$2.4 billion in spending statewide. • The historic lift bridge will become a significant destination and draw increased use. Much like the Stone Arch Bridge in Minneapolis, users will be able to travel to and experience the bridge and the riverway in a very different way than they do today. • The proximity to the Twin Cities Metro Area provides access to around 2 million people 411 that are potential users of this facility. o The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources manages the Gateway State Trail that currently terminates on the west end at the edge of downtown St. Paul , (with plans to extend it further west) and on the east end at Pine Point Park,just north of Stillwater. • Current annual counts from the Minnesota DNR are approximately 189,000 to 272,000 users. o The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is in the planning stage of developing the Browns Creek State Trail which will intersect with the Gateway State Trail west of Manning Avenue and terminate in Stillwater at the northwest corner of the Loop Trail. • Projected annual counts from the Minnesota DNR are approximately 62,000—89,000 users. o These two state trail facilities will provide continuous off-road trails from the heart of St. Paul to Stillwater and the St Croix River Valley. • Wisconsin's County Road E, currently accommodates bicycles and pedestrians and connects to the regional trail system in Wisconsin. • The loop trail will tie together existing and emerging trail systems in both Minnesota and Wisconsin allowing trail crossing opportunities across borders. This will more safely and efficiently provide users a clear and comfortable way for traveling between the two states. • The new Hwy 36 bridge and the lift bridge will serve as the confluence point for several United States Bicycle Routes that come into Minnesota from Wisconsin and then distribute users across the state and on to further destinations across the country. • Usage: Considering the existing high usage of the Gateway State Trail and the development of the Browns Creek State Trail,the Cities of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Bayport with the Town of St.Joseph and this proposed loop trail facility will create a more desirable and logical destination than Pine Point Park for current and future trail users and it should be anticipated that use of these two trails will increase. For questions about the bicycle or pedestrian opportunities created by the St. Croix River Crossing Project's Loop Trail,walks and other project trails, please contact: Tim Mitchell MnDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator 651-366-4162 tim.mitchell@state.mn.us Meeting#1—Brief Summary Oak Park Heights—MnDOT discussions Tuesday- November 22, 2011 Attendees (lead participants) Dave Beaudet Les Abrahamson Mary McComber Mark Swenson Mike Runk Ted Lillie Gary Kriesel Beth Bartz Scott McBride Adam Josephson Attendees (staff and other) Eric Johnson, City Administrator Mark Vierling, City Attorney Chris Long, City Engineer Maryanne Kelly-Sonnek, MnDOT Marilyn Remer, MnDOT Todd Clarkowski, MnDOT Wayne Sandberg, County Engineer • Mike Wilhelmi, St. Croix Bridge Coalition Note):This meeting was part of a city council work session and not a formal council meeting. As such no formal actions were or can be taken by the council. Opinions were shared in an open public forum during this meeting but no binding actions were taken. Note2:This brief meeting summary provides a general overview of the discussions that occurred at this meeting and are not meant to be detailed meeting minutes of the discussions. 1. Welcome and Introductions Mayor Beaudet opened the meeting as a City Council work session and welcomed all participants. Participants introduced themselves. Scott McBride introduced Beth Bartz,who will serve as the facilitator for the process. 2. Purpose/Goals Beth reviewed the purpose and goals as listed on the project agenda. She reminded group that the purpose of this process in not to negotiate in language or specific dollar amounts a formal agreement, but rather develop the framework from which a formal agreement can be • negotiated. 1 . p Y 3. Overview of Meeting Process • Beth explained that the first meeting will focus on reviewing information;the second on identifying and evaluating options, and the third on determining the framework and identifying steps to implementing an agreement. Beth asked group to consider Steven Covey quote "Seek first to understand." 4. Ground Rules Beth reviewed the ground rules for the discussion process as listed on the agenda. 5. Summary of concerns and interests: Oak Park Heights Les Abrahamson distributed and reviewed the handout "Approximate Listing of issues—St Croix River Crossing" concerning costs, maintenance, equity and design issues; Issues below the first seven bullets with the exception of"equity" were agreed to be outside of the meeting purpose and will be discussed at a later time; additional topics for later discussion also identified were staging area issues and construction impacts, particularly vibration. • City needs better project cost information to make good decisions • City Council needs to be responsible to citizens by justifying benefits in order to agree to initial cost and on-going maintenance responsibilities. • • Regional project—City feels they are disproportionately burdened by project costs and believe local costs should be shared more equitably • 1995 MOU needs to be reviewed, what has changed since then? 6. Summary of concerns and interests: MnDOT Scott McBride made the following points on behalf of MnDOT: • MnDOT can't solve these issues for the City nor can the City solve them on its own; we need to work together to resolve. • Do not want to leave city in a bad spot, it is timely that these issues be resolved • Local cost participation in MnDOT projects is shaped by state statutes (legal restrictions on what MnDOT can or cannot do) and MnDOT policies (put in place to ensure equity across the state in a wide variety of projects). We will be as flexible as we can with our policies to reduce city costs; state statute restrictions will preclude some options. • The City, as the utility owner, per state statute is responsible for determining how to adjust affected utilities in state R/W and the costs, available HPP funds will help reduce those costs. Possible Framework Option:Review of cost participation policies in place when 1995 • municipal consent was granted may provide an avenue for flexibility. 2 • 7. Background on statutes, policies, HPP funding, etc. —Adam Josephson Adam reviewed current project information regarding layout, mitigation plan, schedule and funding. Available High Priority Program (HPP) funds were reviewed: • MN191 $3.6M obligated for right of way acquisition and utility relocation—these funds are available to City for"eligible costs" with a 20% local match. "Betterment" costs are not eligible. (Defined later.). A state/city agreement needs to be executed before costs can be incurred and reimbursed. • MN217 $8.1M obligated for design, construction and right of way costs. MnDOT has been spending these funds for right of way acquisition and mitigation efforts. Required 20% match has been provided by MnDOT. • MN126$360,000 obligated for"preliminary design and study of long-term roadway approach alternatives" requires a $90,000 local match. Note: Eligibility for these funds is determined by FHWA. Possible Framework Option:Explore possibility of MN191 funds being converted to funds which would not require a local match. • Adam reviewed definitions of"Utilities by Permit," "First Move," and "Betterment" under state statutes. Betterments are not HPP eligible per FHWA. Utilities by Permit and impacted by the project may be eligible for HPP funding. First Move costs are a state responsibility. 8. Estimated cost impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Report—dated 11/10/11 Oak Park Heights presented a summary of"St. Croix River Crossing Project: Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights, November 10, 2011." This cost estimate included direct up-front costs, delayed long-term costs-20 year horizon, and direct incurred costs to date. The Study looked at four scenarios with estimates ranging from $7- $18 million. 9. Identified cost and maintenance issues—Adam Josephson Adam reviewed a list of anticipated Oak Park Heights utility and up-front costs which MnDOT has estimated at$3.3M, available HPP funds reduce estimated city costs to under$1,000,000. MnDOT did not estimate long-term maintenance costs. Possible Framework Option:Agreed that determination of which utility work is a "betterment"(not eligible for HPP) versus a utility relocation eligible for HPP is worth a closer • look given current City standards for utility construction. 3 Agreed that MnDOT will meet with Oak Park Heights staff to conduct a more detailed review of • the utility plan and determinations of"first move" "utility by permit" "betterment." betterment. Council needs to discuss and direct staff accordingly to work with MnDOT in this effort. 10. Summary of Meeting 1 Meeting participants shared new information they had learned or insights obtained during the first meeting. 11. Next Steps • MnDOT agreed to look further into policy to determine if there is any discussion of cost participation in context of regional benefit. • MnDOT will send another copy of the utility layout to the City. • Better define city utility costs, current numbers based on discussions from 2006 and recent city review of project costs. City and State will work together to develop "30% utility design"to better define impacts, betterments and costs for city utilities. • City will determine extent of utility work needed to address utility conflicts, including if utilities will remain in state R/W by permit or moved off state R/W to new easement areas. • Meeting#2 will look at options to resolve costs. Any option ideas prior to meeting • should be directed to Eric and Adam; City Council members please do not comment on each other's submissions prior to meeting due to concerns about open meeting law (refer any questions about this to Eric Johnson). Meeting#2—December 28, 2011—7:00—9:00 PM - Boutwells Landing—discussion of possible funding options. Mayor Beaudet closed the work session. Attached • City handout—Approximate Listing of Issues—St Croix River Crossing (11/22/11) • Flip Chart Notes from Nov 22nd meeting Also distributed at Meeting#1 • • 3-Ring binder with meeting materials and agenda 4 • • Mn Statute 161.46—see tab#25 in 3-ring binder • MnDOT Cost exception letter dated October 6, 2006—see tab #7 in 3-ring binder • Estimated Cost Impacts to the City—report dated November 10, 2011—correction noted on page 15 of 36—see tab#10 in 3-ring binder *** • • 5 Oak Park Heights—MnDOT Discussion of St. Croix River Crossing Local City Cost Issues • Notes from 11/22/11 meeting, B. Bartz Flip chart notes Clarify: Xcel responsibility for expenses for burying of utilities Options - HPP eligibility for"betterments"? - Convert HPP funds from 80/20 match to 100%? - What constitutes "betterment"? - Re: frontage road turn-back—can replaced pipe just be meeting city policy rather than be termed a betterment? - Suggested detailed review of utility layout—revisit "betterment areas"—gray area - Could Osgood to Oakgreen pipes be lined? Would this place it in a different category? Design questions: - Does proposed trail connect to any regional facilities (believe there is a regional trail on the TH 5 corridor) - Could the trail along south frontage road become a sidewalk instead? If this is required • as part of a Mn/DOT facility why would City be responsible for maintenance and later replacement? • 6 ECKBERG.4 LAMMERS ■47#1 • T r c'It ti l ti q t I m Stillwater office: 1809 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Writer's Direct Dial (651) 439-2878 (651)351-2118 Fax(651)439-2923 Writer's Email Hudson Office: mvierling(geckberglarnmers.com 430 Second Street December 28,2011 Hudson,Wisconsin 54016 (715)386-3733 Fax(715)386-6456 Mr.Adam Josephson www.eckberglammers.com East Area Manager—MnDOT Metropolitan District Water's Edge Building 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 Re: Oak Park Heights—MN/DOT Discussions Regarding Truck Highway 36 Improvements—St. Croix River Crossing Our File No.: 01501-17683 Dear Adam: A copy of your draft Minutes of the meeting of November 22, 2011 have forwarded to me by Eric • Johnson. With regard to your Note 1 in the Minutes, I appreciate the effort taken to note in specific relative to the meeting that the meeting itself was part of the city work session not a formal council meeting and thus no formal action can or would be taken by the counsel. In pursuit of further clarity and in an effort to set a framework for future beneficial discussions, it is the expectation of the City of Oak Park Heights that neither MN/DOT nor the City or their personnel would make any formal statements to the press or public representing that any agreement, in part or total may have been reached from these discussions that will be ongoing unless or until a joint statement to that effect is issued by both MN/DOT and the City. In the past there have been difficulties experienced as a result of impromptu communications in this very sensitive topic between MN/DOT and the City and we earnestly desire to avoid any such statements, misunderstandings, or problems that flow from them. We trust that you agree with this position, but if the agency for any reason does not, certainly we can discuss that this evening when we gather again. Best wishes to you and your family for the New Year! Yours M. k J.Vierling Oak eights City Attorney MJV/jlp cc: Mr. Eric Johnson, City Administrator • f rF RrRr. I.:\\11IERS, BRIGGS. \\bl.rr t4 \'IERI.INC;. PLLP Family Law I Divorce • Business and Commercial Law • Criminal Law • Personal Injury/Wrongful Death Estate Planning t Probate • Real Estate • Land Use Law • Mediation • Municipal Law • Civil Litigation • Oak Park Heights Benefits due to the St Croix River Crossing Proiect (Prepared by MnDOT for 12/28/11 meeting) ✓ An improved Hwy 36 corridor and river crossing will make Hwy 36 a more reliable and safer corridor,which will be better for residents, commuters, businesses and customers in the area and in the City of Oak Park Heights. ✓ Improvements to the Hwy 36 intersections at Oakgreen and Osgood,which are primary access points to the city,will benefit city residents and businesses. ✓ An improved and widened 60th Street will benefit businesses,customers and residents along the south frontage road. ✓ A new river crossing improves access to/from western Wisconsin and a significant population that work and frequent Oak Park Height's businesses. ✓ Upgraded transportation facilities will improve the economic climate for the area and city. ✓ The new Hwy 36/95 interchange provides direct ramp connections between Hwy 36 and Hwy 95 (south)and will divert traffic out of the lower Oak Park Heights residential neighborhood that • currently uses Stagecoach Trail. ✓ The new trails that are planned with the project and linkages to current trails will provide a regional attraction that will draw users and customers to the area, as well as, provide facilities that will serve city residents. ✓ Water quality treatment facilities planned with the project will improve water quality in the area and in the river. ✓ Current crash rates are higher than the metropolitan average, improved facilities will reduce the number of crashes and their severity which will benefit city residents and all users. ✓ If the project is not built the area will remain clogged with congestion which is detrimental to the quality of life and livability of the area. ✓ If the condition of the lift bridge ever gets to the point that it had to be closed, not having a river crossing in this area will have detrimental impacts to the region,the area,city residents and city businesses. • 12/28/11 • Loop Trail, walks and trails of the St. Croix River Crossing Project 12/12/11 The St. Croix River Crossing Project has accommodated bicycle and pedestrian users while considering the social, economic and environmental issues. The 2004 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement provides some context for these trail issues, while the 2006 Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement identifies the need for construction of a Loop Trail connecting the existing Lift Bridge to the new river crossing bridge. The 2007 Visual Quality Manual provides aesthetic design guidance for the Loop Trail and other trails planned with the project. The attached Trail Graphic shows the Loop Trail,trails and walks existing and planned to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians in the area. The trail components and supporting infrastructure of the St. Croix River Crossing project should realize high volumes of utilization from users both locally and regionally, as well as intrastate and interstate bicycle travelers. This conclusion is based on the unique historical, natural, cultural, recreational and community based resources of the St. Croix River Valley area and the surrounding communities in Minnesota and Wisconsin that will serve to draw trail users of varied interests and origins. The following provide additional reasons to support this conclusion: • The surrounding communities have a large population base that local use alone will be significant as this loop facility will provide a unique opportunity for residents to recreate and enjoy the river and its amenities. The trail will be an attractive distance for many to utilize and afford many different user interests in multiple ways to experience the trail. • Stillwater and the surrounding communities are already a destination for travelers, as is the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. It is expected that trail users will view the loop trail as an attractive amenity. The Loop Trail gives visitors an option to take a short hike or bike ride or to make a longer trip by connecting to the local trail systems of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Bayport,Town of St.Joseph,St. Croix and Washington Counties. • Trails can be generators of economic activity. A 2009 study by the University of Minnesota Tourism Center estimated that trail users (including residents and visitors) contributed to$2.4 billion in spending statewide. • The historic lift bridge will become a significant destination and draw increased use. Much like the Stone Arch Bridge in Minneapolis, users will be able to travel to and experience the bridge and the riverway in a very different way than they do today. • The proximity to the Twin Cities Metro Area provides access to around 2 million people that are potential users of this facility. o The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources manages the Gateway State Trail that currently terminates on the west end at the edge of downtown St. Paul 410 • (with plans to extend it further west) and on the east end at Pine Point Park, ' ( p ) t a ,dust north of Stillwater. • Current annual counts from the Minnesota DNR are approximately 189,000 to 272,000 users. o The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is in the planning stage of developing the Browns Creek State Trail which will intersect with the Gateway State Trail west of Manning Avenue and terminate in Stillwater at the northwest corner of the Loop Trail. • Projected annual counts from the Minnesota DNR are approximately 62,000—89,000 users. o These two state trail facilities will provide continuous off-road trails from the heart of St. Paul to Stillwater and the St Croix River Valley. • Wisconsin's County Road E, currently accommodates bicycles and pedestrians and connects to the regional trail system in Wisconsin. • The loop trail will tie together existing and emerging trail systems in both Minnesota and Wisconsin allowing trail crossing opportunities across borders. This will more safely and efficiently provide users a clear and comfortable way for traveling between the two states. • • The new Hwy 36 bridge and the lift bridge will serve as the confluence point for several United States Bicycle Routes that come into Minnesota from Wisconsin and then distribute users across the state and on to further destinations across the country. • Usage: Considering the existing high usage of the Gateway State Trail and the development of the Browns Creek State Trail,the Cities of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Bayport with the Town of St.Joseph and this proposed loop trail facility will create a more desirable and logical destination than Pine Point Park for current and future trail users and it should be anticipated that use of these two trails will increase. For questions about the bicycle or pedestrian opportunities created by the St. Croix River Crossing Project's Loop Trail,walks and other project trails, please contact: Tim Mitchell MnDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator 651-366-4162 tim.mitchell @state.mn.us i g r t i; a Paz ! ' MANNING All,E.(CO RD.,11E4 ,: � a 2 E g�" ,�+c v m °' r 'y.Y m> -D O T 1 � @'' v 2 'D zp -c 3 dm �` N< m a v m 43 7' a, 3 Z >-" .: °N O ' f m a m H cn m to r... :yY.r ' o••1 * n a D J "�'ny• y k o c a v y: — 8 gvas, B 8 a 0 — o� N CD -V 1 S _ II0 0 litt, . ; .,.., ray 4._:_... ....: ,„,„, , .,.....,...,..„.„...„ :....,.... ....,„3., . . . ., ., •. °AKGREEN AVE, ,� a r4. 1iI .� a f'• V � 4.... _ ,�`,� s1�yeti 4 z � � 9 ' Zr 6� c n ? <t` SIN•. 4 4/, _ jj 9 - 4 00 va, C) ..,,,;„...t.,,,, "..., ': .\ ''''';i:-..,.r.14,,,,.(.77.,1144''Lv:,',. -' . ,7 C.. OM rD�O z • 7r- v :If::: i t '' - ANDERSEN SCOUT CAMP RD. i 0• ' .7K. CI) mo .x Z =T M a i S • a}m� . o. 'a g 3 a 0 0 w F O �,. il e p 'a G G� O N '71 W I y @a ar ^< b.°_ O a. ^ WO 1 n ki4 J P. LI.E�.II — 6 a W 0 ro C. CD If `fljE bhId HG £o <mH 1 I" b yy s §Q- m a z ii O. 10 1 am..�. - pz ° $ $Bt ` M N M N M M Off-Street Trail A.cc �`o..s' j °siAnN_ H NH N N Trill Access Puking ; c,..a. i I�,�„��—p S Am ie rn o N N M N N N Playground [L"':'2_,,, • oi..M , p . '1,11111k OH 7 a� N N Tenors coon g .1, .a !� i os..r. a a. M M N M Basketball Coup z • e C. 0. . F N M M N Shelter with Be.room. i C , t--�'.�-fir N N N Pon-a-pots l I 1 r ° N M N M Public R estrooma - - _t____.1 p y F n !J1I N N O M N Baseball Diamonds i; fRl I° $ N N Soccer Field 1 ill 1 N Disc Golf y I sf I ix m > pp z \\1 a .} f m 131 C o r \y- fi ;1I Lii1 o T m-- iiib F n Ta..at q69 q YY 'x tt a�:ow- IPP i [�1(� 9.� m d,• B1N4yg a y "r min 3 Np 0�R g 9 ggg8 �C ,v 4. sa ' -i- --./ s i .,' , Sill ii Ai,. - x-15 FP 1 '_ 1 r` 111. '' - ",I 'ss Iii.APO tlx ,- II--41'.::: , I 1-- 1 11117-4.11 '1 0.7 ird 4.e. I-ri I 1:;t::±..-,--., ip, 9 VI L ..., , : 1 f L - 1 A.. i, .I. : — I io_ 2 -r -- i 4ti7 MI v� ow c it, , 4 + �,®romolo a TI '1LJ__ — , , , _ ,,__ -7 1 teilif; I ill 11...1! ] 1] 1 , -CI- 11 22 :2 22 0 (N i iagst ;VII 1m $ ' 11ti 5m v$ :E 31 1 1 1 m m I •° ' t cP �e 7 C NW 10 T I � lj m ivi E1I o E g 5. a i m A cIf 3 �I N 14it::�I...:.u:ry, r lam* I I .■IIi 1 creo�,w:rw�vlore�rrell��I - I D p•P:►►Si pu N $ '�111�mi res m-ii.r :' ^'mii nr.q�ir _� ■l11♦♦ ♦ .•. ► mr49/�� ,—� v �� r ♦�I��{ a n®I am11#4 • ,• z osft�i ii ,i ,_�� m :o e nJ Sri• t 3.I / c�4ti.i+♦ /iil 11e,./.1.�w., l 3S -5 jl� 1 ° -- /1 >; ' ♦ o I p .. .. l . ' vF 'ra �a a-x ��9 �11O.i;a �_.��taxi l....Nos.uu:�% �:I� � _� K Li' m m IF I 111 lid °i il�♦:-141: "o� It :1 �. ( •,, I opj■_k� $/ z1�1%�� _ �� - �a 4. • ,, �� ft l u ,' �u.**1 7I z . I ®=`I rl rj r•♦i .t�: h G►i:•:ter iiii Uqq►�� 1�r l�1'ail. 9 'CS •♦ �t�►.I► xis ♦ �1 _ 11. In t 1 ��,� •♦ �, 1111 ,,,., 111,.,;,.:•••.:�:•►::.1...::;-..., �;.-••,P•• �f1 M. .a-.--.��E'. •' ;..11� � �� 1�t.,∎ .1`.0►!n ..ii i.i.....s• ..� � . !, ∎ ■9■..■i d 1' r i i illi � I�r o 1�_..i�n� .i♦�rI►\ -- qu•°r I-_„- ,�.►i t. P ■! �� .. p.R-r, Y 1►I,•�.iu l 1/r3.1 //IA d\l t♦l■►O4 ♦ 11%.4.5_,„:41:l :�:I ill JIB 11111111// C 111 1,A o>r 1111111// / 11•.■I�,• 1'Ir'r l , IF v ii ww �_�� 111-:r : s m" P�L�G�IID � rpm v W • '��.tali s nr.u.ni► ►�01�1� ►• 11,--k."-- �_J�� -S Mi► II®�.►.. 111_: m � �` �- _�J �•• Z I Iona Ill iAZI > ,'''- C7 F.2 \•: -r II ■�1.. �r., .. .,, ,.,11 1.11111.c ��. imps ..111...-- d iiii■•1n1 : .I ;nro.-._ 1 et....,_'=' 'S= =•1�- I ...1111111.- :. L -;_ - -- , ;Q. r, .'.♦♦t � , `1. aI�I�I r� ktoil dit ='norm - !!II ifi:'' 0,-■■u0iii.rr= sy;ed pue sveMepis H3S `spieal pesodo rd pue 6u fs►x3 `sxaed s�.--vQa 1,,'a 17 Sc a . o . BUM ��y VNNVAVS X10210 VN'1S S ILi22 1 N21Vd 1.r S38111V33 1Van1VN } , )I1VM301S • ■ ,S-ca301nOHS S1IV2ll ONI1SIX3 =gSVM1 03OdO2d — — x., . 20012kO3 H02V3S I �VOOMOD t 1IV211. 1VNO1032 A311VA XIONO is 3100111 110511112121 't..•' '1.\:,...usttti>‘,..■-:f )i ':...,-''. '': a i I i ,. a -•k - : —--- ■ "L,....,.,_. - \ \ t ry 1* ,._i f Hlw WV .." . l t .. :1 = •0 •IAY :$•-••• , . 1i1 , :I : a _ ._,4 r-, }waxes ; 1 sie V } e4. '-• 1 . 19 . % , Clikk, . .1-,1::1 : Vi "12 \ 113 tel,'"•;,;••: - V..1,...'Lit.'. • Lunn 313,110.11i0* 1 ZT-51 a6od �� (pasodoud) ,xf 1113 frx LOOZ-Run uudd,S SID Atunoo uol6wyseM'LOOZ-Iruunoo ueylodoieyy:aoJnoS e1e0 luawUedea 11'Pun uoddnS SIO 6Wnoo uoibulyseM:dg paoldwd Neil reuorGaJ se;5r o4 tU Od T ♦ �� 11^!,4 \ '-1 ` ,!:died leuor.A. ; r. sel!IN " w on•'x a A S V• s R Puelsr 9 b C Z L 0 „i x:111:01 pnooA3.19 113111 xaa ... 6:= _VJ9nrx is S m M.'-- s peul leua,6a2l Imam aureud * I /40'\ c4 •.. i 3 (i..%110 M m rr �I�U•% 1 • r!! t 1x N f lieu!reuo/fiae, f a fl #� SWIM 00//V 151110•0., • Not,, 1311 ..1 -Ili IS 3 IT leuor6ad 43000 XI• -i 31131 N 1 n o S. I8 uol/y 111' • m m u;. r ¢a.rd luautalieaeyi a3?IP!JY gil ',411 11.1 . gi Ill • bl .427• . ea1V Ir•tnmm 1 pug agnualoS IIII ott .01 ON1tiMY1 *Ind XiUfOD • 9i ,62punog void.talsejni E::1 pauugld • ♦9 *red alms i 11'110 �:r::C,amM01 Oa1■5`0111 �': # e31Vg3aeaslreay 0 lwei.. mAliff • llely alms pauueld .f► ::! sof: ,4u +• easy games 112.11 3121S Smis Xg I%, M1111f". Hell r(apeq xroio 7S aIPP!W - F4O 113,,, 110x11119 IIB11 leuo!Sall pauueld •" 03 015 3 Ileay Ieuot9a2l Sulls[xg v "1/euorfiaa 1M1'I110u s ltety.(lunop pauueld ,'•• `` C �► •INRx10011131rM1 11 ,30 IIg{l,�iliMOD Oupspca 3 r:;11.?:r �> II 15410u ea 1311, , ', •� tl ^ rt NI 00110 9 _ lreul�eu:5: s11ry lenel9 V, !,,...4.- �� 1 1 mats IIvIi, IUao!2ag eauy yaue&l:iil.::.ffi' I • IN ems deMaJ a �ONVOf , • - $ • • I1 .. e I t 93 ' • •i f • • • z-S a.in2i3 a• .s S 5 SZ'T o saw Z'6L=spa1;aln;sJlaar� Aemy81H AunJl NW 4allWr r--1—_1 Aem 81 unJ sumolg pub Abmalb9 OM'72,211;S o;lnod 15 4 H>I 1'S'fl — TTOZlaq ua3ea Aemy81H,tunhlale3sialu1 — spe11 pue seed}o uo!s!AIa 2Nd sallw6 S=ia;ompilS'15iamo7- 22210 112w 0 JaAIa'weans'PuOd'alel 1 ••o;uol;Junf y;ulna:11bJ1 a4b;5>taao sumo/g sano JOUI J • lied 23e2S F--) '• N sally JoreVN 0 weans 3noil paleu8lsaa V sallw flit=dml.a1om1113S�lmd•bay;ulod aurd- suo!s!nla INTO JOU!W i hell ale1S Aemale9∎ sally f ft=uol;7ull43nMQ 11eJl awls>laala sumojg c. —0 mod'15'15 obnAD3:poll alb;S AD/22109 pua8al A !,O CI tet j S l v ".saloys puela>le s r• , :. fi I 04 l • tU r_.! ti, e. 0, impel o PPP- 1 PUe1231e1� .' c filed f ; i. -'. ;' eO S 1 3cc E t te4 1 .. 1 ;aai;S 111 oonk. w .. �m;^ -ZL� • e ow3 aJel Q i� Y ,� T. e • poonalden ~4 ,® L = ► pled lulus UPON 1 W>Ned A sly6le ep' J_.. _ — � S 1 J epeuaO apUl INi66 it 0 ''‘‘ %. ,') ' :i44 t JeleMll!jS uolhunf a1waIIIM'<° _ :__s„ ° tee • 2)1131 wx 1211•s!aup� 1aa13S `, « 3 ylnlna a6elll�POOMy3Jig I �, r la�no7 / 1 auJO e o ?3a, mil, .P 1U IN �. f l rte? �F � � Pr"E ilk r PooMgoa `. m " 0 " s?lep gpONO I [ a t Fr` a I. 4-12d Oat! 4 Pa ∎- lulod aurd s s Tr �r 4C to elANalueo la % t —I AI tor cc, t' ',' dv� MS 1. XIOJ3 lUle9.,UO' W • ..v. 1 1 l S6- o_� —_. Ted 2113'1$ uaus 0tue,IIVA l„,r7 se „,r7 S£ Xa;uo3 IOL1O! ay Heil aims''Rao su woi � o � � � � $ � mi. o , Vs; m f of iii .» = : . 2:' Vf Slip , N 3 T. - at 9w x r ° r. ;, �. � J R k N d 00 ` - +A. R- « -e 8 a' ° } .o .® 71 , . f - - 7 _''' --- , -- ”Ir ... . c;„I f • , a j S W h ( r o w 3 S' ; °• it) I�� o o N m d w O v, -' c n � g p K, 54 • g • A , >r _ n c N _ [ ,' 3 `z 5 m 0 x m^ O z H a o f m - 3 ^�" t O ? nso °° o _ c 3 ? g Q n c°3 m m E z c •0 o O G v. :I_. . . x ■ T 3afc 7 Ct o A k # '' , +' .� C d O Z 3 7 -X .�h yyp y. t..y_ I ` K o -• I((q��p"�. 'A•. - ., ... , . .1..4 ' • 4,-. ..''', . ' - i ..•maisimpamin -ItecimrfrizedrArsimarzsi,• Ti; , ,.,... . , - -- ... -- ' , 1 . - ' .! , 2 - ',""10,- .......'• •:.7..,,, ' '-' „,,'.....' ','"7`...!""` " ' p, I ,-.x. . ,4-..ii- '4.;■7 ''' '' ' 0 0 7 C/-) Ca 7 15 3 K 7 W 7, 0 -13 -0 ., A:•--,...• - ... . 6 - .4r, .: ,.... '... r'' DJ a -I 5.• Q. ...- 0: a.) FP (-3 --I _ ...., . irt- .,, , , .i.-. - . • ‘ 0-0 -0 0 -`"1: -,31 5° = RI, a ciP (TP -$ m 7, a a 0 ..=._...-- 3 (D -.--- a) - -0 R R 0 m . .. M r- 2 5-<- , of ,....0 T, :4 80) a (r. F "MANNING AyE. (CO. RD.,15) '""- ' .,. -,"..,; "--...it.,";',..,"; K R. 5'. -, O. I "+e L 4, , , , - , .• • ' " r. n: mCD 2 w 0 3, — 0 w r2 ..., . cu cu 0 , x> o 0, c53 0 0.) - •", . ,. x "0 c w 3 • c , w cp .,(4 A--(15 3 3 z „, "..., ... . . ;i.."';.^ : ',..'• --.4..;4r , i,-"a-< 6-2 = 0 A.- ,-.., ,,,;77.-- ',1 (DI. CD--.- •.. • --.--1 ..i.. „... s. - * 'Z' C1) 93 = a) co Z i gra, .14?..vt 4:704&,44„ ..._*, ., - .-,• H (7) = = FT1 -..t. • r• it *fr. ., '.." 0 , ' I, 'I.',41:-.‘,„:',.,..kic'icZ.4 -1,6 , . ,... fir- ,, 0 *. ,,.1.:.1, , '', . ..., '.' l' ••"'4,..:,,..We , - t 18 0 6 3 0 @ < < 0 -, 1„.., --- -1 CD CD ......-. .....1, ..4.7. % •''No .;•h, •- .....- -41:::... 4.,,,.1.• ,...: - c, 6 (D ..... ' (.0 --. --1 -' ,- .... IP', ,',,, N./„4. • ?.--... .44., .2. . .. .-..,......*- Ci) -0 ).- (n - ,.- ._ --1 -n 0 c -8-, — '- •.:. - a: . N • , iliA: --1 0 07 -, - w 0 . ' 0 m a. ,.2 Da ,-, _. .,. Co- • Z - : e 2 ' 0 ' J J , •.,. 1, Z -, cv t•T Cn -2 0) FD•51) 0 = . , ' 0 .. ' 0- ,,.— — cokrzi .6. . a_ -, c 0 -, > . 0 * ,..., — 2RIP , . . . - . -o 0 - : 0) 0 0 p„) @ -0 ..11, . • , . _ . . . , . ,..) 0_ 0 CD 6' X iv 77.- ct: '1 - , , A - PC- V) 0 D a) cp co -0 .... ' co a 0 0) m -0 = •- -v,„. - - o R. Ci) . 0? s -c, , . R- -. . . , - . -.„, . _ .. , eN_ -0 . . . . ..,4 ' — ' •) . ._ — . CD co . . . -- 1 %" ' . 'R.. I '.i.0.1..,- . . -, . • ., ,.. , . . , - . - , - , I • . . . .„ .. ---- ,.... ,, . g• 1.. „ . . ., • ,t‘. j/k; ''.*' ' 4.' • - • ..,-.,„ - wo 7••114 .,,, ' ' * ' • 7, ,..'. ;- ‹ i P.'. . . . • ._ .. . .. „ . . . mg ., I' . • ,--- ... , ait. .-47. n-- . - , ,.• , . , s. -r, ,.. 0 . . , , 1I1I 1 . • ., , .,.1 r" • i, i ., -- • • _ .',•••.:' i - r-vi ' 14**:....r.•„••■•.,,,,%!,`-',': ••••• . ''' .1.• ' /& ... -. „„...-- . . 'a.": '' r ...,...4%,‘„..-A ----. .. . ..f.,,,-,,, .., .., - -- ..„...., a. ..,....,,,,....„ .,..:,..... , :„..... .. ....„.-4 4.'4 4'.4'.. . .. '''.1 1 04# 136r.S; ' . , .° .' , . , PA k'Y i''.4.17;'.` '+'''C . - , -. 1. '' ' ' 1 •. . ' ....'' .'" IN'3'.' ,,,,-77-,..1. ,.. • ; -".. . .v . •••=, . .•-.'!'.:=-. , . .• -' ....--- `•-,„„ ;;7--: co ,02. ,•_, _ :,-.I• ,,:rf• . - ,,--,r.7 47,&,,. ,,:-.... '',4.: - .....,,. * - ,z1-.P.24-40'..'•ik.- .4ie•A-1,4,-,..:.,..:, • ,..." J 5. ' • . ., .-,,-,.. •,:„, .7 , zat.'!..i. .1.,..:q ','" 1.--‘,,'''T.,,,•%-17,W,‘,,,,,:7„,,,. .=:;,, ;,:e• - . . . i 7:t e77.t•-•• :1 i.‘ ,;:.,.: ._--,.,• - : , .. . , , .. , ",-.o,6*,,....,,t=y :......414,1,7r..t",..4." , .... ,„,;•,„' 4 1 .l ' .: I (g) wal ” • • , . , ......... , gr , .4- ■ WI9 III ' . ,i tirr • "44it, Ai 11 Z :OAKGREEN AVE. -.,1111r i-....‘ r I , - r., „a, 4., ,•••4,,, "m .i. at Alf 4• ' , ''''''.11111.. . . . '..... #,,ri#p . '' -•' OS 1 A ■,,' ,,.., f...71i ,. -, , A . . ' , . ,... : I . ,.7 ,....,GREscott AvE. - , . , . ....* . : .- _ - _ ...... , . --..-. •-, ... . -... - , ' '' — ' . -1. ---- ,...„,., tso..4• , ; ;0. -: - -. • • . ., -.. _ ...... .. . (C.S.A.H. 1113) 1 - • 4•1 I. .,,.. , ,,.., . 94 , A - ' Z301 ' i'.0* • . . ...4 i t),:_*„?le'i':7','' ;.... ....°,-;;:s....- .. it, ,.. ;,.' .._, '.. •• ..• ."- . .....! ;. , ' . . • MI en. .,, . • .k._ ,• . ", •.) - . . - • ■ • . 31 • .. •" • I •---•,1:7.4.• ---i•.".7-%;tr .,.. z. ,.,1 .. 4„;,-„,......;,:.: 'XV . : , - „„,.., . -• - i. g - 4 • - , . • -:..: \-. . .....: 5,stki- . -.. . "rk ;••• -- 47 .: . • . . , • ., . , .. v: .. ' 4•Ii; ,- .00• I ii: • . < ;'''' .. 10'''•14.11 ' ..'4 '' ', ...'24...4.44 01, - -A. -...A..‘..-. - • ' . '• , .4, ,, ,g •.4".... 1711 1111r l'64)"I'l . .i:,- .," !,.'.,,, ••••;A• I ''''''' '...'' , " ' ' ''' . *-' ' ' ' - . .* '• i'' V.: '''...'•'•,.... i• '..0.7. i • if . en .. -- '' ki -. • • - •. ..- -.4"-, ,y4 :',"*. ite:* ,-.- -;.45-.1,- '; ' ----,--: . . - . .-. .-' , ,2. --'--,-/-•-,, ," ,i ..' .. - ',' _ --• •,-.-',..'..,'-r* '" t,--1 - tr. " ''''' -,•,.. ','" - 04,j,I.iiit"..;A''‘' --!.•-411 f---7 ."`-.'''''' -. ."---` "' ' . - -- -"4-."," : ',-•- <", - -•.--- CI . - , - - - --r •,.--A-4.. . --- '"' ,i4141,- . - -,-,‘,..... -01., --''''.. 4. . ,,,...- '' *4' 1,0,4,0,---•' '''''''' '... 40...'i,'',' #'0 ,, •'., 'lir,--. 1 -,-...._-* •--„'„ ---,„t- ''.'„ '-..„..„4.5-: , .., ,-...„,... t-.1. ,---, .,-- , ..."' ' '' . i., ' ,,... . . , _ -..- •.- An"' -, .4"',, -- A. •* ••• • - 11- ' ' i, , . . ,,nt - .... .:-•-„% . 1 1 A . 1 , Cf) ,.. . .....---4 ...- ,.. 4 ,_ , , ,, ,t , _. - -5, els. cji .. - - , • - -, Ar• 4'', - „..-- 10 . • ..1. 11 c . *0 . 0 . 05‘ . 0 • ,.\` Viao„ s , t ,. . -464 ' ' '' .' aP . Vtt •. , ,, . , i■ • ' • " ■ I ..- ' :As, 4.* .. . t • , .... 21:1 ',.• . _. -.c3-/ slA.______ - - . -". ''‘ . , 0 lb. t* . •'.7.. •••.,,.. I ; -: . ,.. , . .,..,*...... ..z. C.•• -. ,, _ ''..I , . * • A .11, ' SC ,im,..ity,.. * \‘' . -0:fr.• • . 111 " "Af "P ,,- „„..„., ,, •'„.... ..., , . . , . ., •A ' cArre+x -,‘,.. 1. ir -'• _ . ....."/Cr . , 10•01 .t. 2 ., • .. ili , • - \4 ” 4 ' .f"!ai:'. ,,..'...: ., - — , -sr' , . ,,, •,.,a- . ' . at* . -... -•:.!, '•'' - ' ,,•••',;,, '„,„.• "..*- ;_',. • ! !...• ,, 46 - „,______,.------ . .. . . '''' 3,•,, ,,,,i a: , , ... . . -... , .111191 . „,....s.„..„..._ .....„___ . .._ 4.... i.-.S.-..i.- .,4,..4.C...• - ., , .. . , .. . `., • ' -- .. - ' ' -'-."Ill'47-: '' ' -," ,.,...-.-l' . - - --' -:-4,04...;ft-....:'''''.-;,---1-'''''';.-;''4.7',;:--"c-'---7,-;'7.-,-...-'*'''''',$,,.■•,••:."2"7-.-.,,,••' . '7'-''''. .--A,,,,.rs,-.. -,..-' 7'#k --- - ,.. ....- '''... .--.:...:.-7.'.1.'•-.;:=F- ,....■._ .• /- , `, II • . - ',I 1 ANDERSEN SCOUT CAMP RD. , , -.1_.......i * .. .. . .s f . .... CI) M T P, .• 4,-,-.-„,„,t-•,..•,.: i " 0 C) m ..11 •, , 1- ,. . z . 4 •,--, •-•.. CI7 1-4 :. ... i, _., r , 21 ci 211 . . ._ .. , ,. .... .. . . _ . , .._.._ . , ,A C1) 0) . .. --.- 5 _ __.*, .. , .. . - ... m , 1)0 - - • . . ? 1Z . .-, o , - , . ..,. . . .., . = , , - - • . . .I : r \ 1 , ,, ' - - 1.... '..,..c.7: ,-f',,*r,,.^ ' . ..''''.`'., -47-74,:', , ,- ,-, , , . A , .4.: -1 / i 4 ' , I ' ,4 ri . .. .----• ,. - , \,.. ' i - '...it-__ ,:. ', . .., , 1 - 1 . , ' ,...,. \ t ...,,, ' .-•-. .. - - _ , ) ...... - . ttil• I ..-- :. - ,• - , _ . r. ..- s.• .... - . i . , .....; „.......,_ - • • • • m g T= E p i jfj J i 1 ,. m to O„P> jO Oy y O 3 n o t LG i no !D Cn V)m N•. ti 0 • O m P.a—. N n o CM s a� • 1011'':4\ x^ n o ft. CD PC a N 0 • Q Q+ Newberry Ave `,� O O co CD : NN, Newell Or ;g.• «. ' ro o .. :» __;-1 z ]1 ,a.. _._... Knugger Lane a a N�p Newgah Ave N N n O f 0 ro o 0 fD . IAveN 3 CA rt 1:1 IQ P r r \ 4 ,..,• , ,...., .... ..,.._._____________ .V 05 n; fNovak Ave N 6 �•_ _ o_. i Non Scotia Ave V eti `� i�V T N to W N i.+ x y N p I ■ o^ n , 0 o w W c A Oakgmn Ave N x„ a _c_ w <} b w w y ^ `< 8- a E i. :w rn^ • o w b r� w O ti z' w o o w " uo0co x w O'Brien An` 0 m ? i g T5 K - X w t g y A oo. w er ojmw•yavoN 6 ■ ,o " , OLifie(y'p Q x U t r r r e \J•p� -x D 'AveN ,•1 t Q Sv' aC Off-Street Trail Access : /,,may„ 1 __________. Omaha An N tf C iliiiiiiii Trail Access Parking om.e A.e �� d g. w7 i e 1111111111 e Playground r i E qoo d Ave o 1111111111 Tennis court N'E E s• ,s a n ! I Oaba,o,Me rni- g. _ x }z p� i 1111111111 Basketball Court ! a� • 1111111111111 a s pp Q--- tt Shelter with Restrooms o ` S a p i XI 11:1111111 Port-a-pots a= x 1y 1 • 1 co Public Restrooms ey Peabody Ave- ' cs rg • `71 v. �1. "i�&^+ < Pellet AveN�(`.OVCi park Q -- -_ e A m n „ter g _ ---_' m h ,, iiiiiiiiii Ice Rink r Pen nu An e• to z N o Or< _\.- Sui'c°aryltLN_ g'36-,A 4i 1111111111 B::::m05 S -, - �5 to s Rffi, ; •p,. _ .a• Disc Golf 2 LA Do r A O O W X / . prSJ w »_�& Ct7 �•• _ F°"&IA F.. O �� 3 a m x rn4 d y i CA w F 0 llir sell ,,,,DE ffh[ FA a n. x b =PP ? to �],. F m.R w o �"� ov W Q.�'�'o m a y o y A A z o C/ F. c !'” i to a r? O[n (�n ❑. N R. b D x a a as r �� I-e ��ozo y<� C' =cm. _,,,. b � w fy? b " p � ►CsJ. n = _ n H v o to J,s ' " �7 0 Y I""' S•5 R- . i ->> CA r"1-3 9 N ZE i 8 v "•a w e i iz fi rn 0 .y r• ` �� b0� rC � ' ��° o �bo� 0 2' O� Uj xi Oy �' a c nzrn c_-1 a w0 00 10 3 bad fAA3 bri R. C f�1 n w C L m unK � aiL"Pri � z b w CC . e nti,. m Z g z ��, $ o o i !!!�ggqi rT, it cA • 0 • 5Z I S _ T 1 kilo-- il( a I SS! i Jt . il 51 tr L r � � r 7 46 1 , i flail...IuIg _ r _ _ _ _ .,,_ __. 1 ..._ . , `ks ' 1 , si . Q 13 8 .r— , I I a a £i II l p: 3 a, • ice.?-+v. _,, 1 ; I µ'Vi' i________ ...... i.. I �1 { T 1 , 1 r a� �_ itri.LI t_ , I L ( 1 i _ I t 1 1 I - ,t-- —+ SF ta ( 1 f 1 . I I 1 ( L i , I .. t i. 1 •a 1 t 'YIP e , A r -i j i, I n , 8 FL .y _ 1 b 1 I .._.. _ , ® ' 1 _ 1` V�XJ O C �.yTr Lid '1\ \ ` 1i Of0 ti, '� O r-V WIU qap ,O, v m .- °°�° kil vw 7 ,Qif - a ,$; p Y Y if� W W m m 3 T � / i9 ri2fiii fD ff1 C 5 m a a i 0 • \t,t.. CORPORATE !.l111TS • 3y At) "---•':7: -' Ifea - f''.:= 5,1111 "rf ‘110 A #► 7TH r VE... 0p i .- . /37_,L.,,..61.• k.. OTH AV N co l V) .. .=�i- N,:• . x` �' ' sn ' � a • 'g I :k.:;;;;:-...F.-:DO' s iv'FL.II ti : ,--1 ;‘ ..14. BAYT i . . l6.1 m ' '• ,.-1 4'cElmit live. U '''' . .. "u°17\ —‘b"*".. 1 'c PLANTERS_PnrN`.��`mac ' I . v. -i N' 1, ,_ ,' / I '�' , ' Ig •ski ‘ : §' :1 - r 1 N I 5 3 MIDDLE ST. CROIX oORPCRA>E 1 , .. VALLEY REGIONAL TRAIL :t= -, SEARCH CORRIDOR ` , gm NEN PROPOSED TRAILS EXISTING TRAILS SHOULDER>=5' -, z : ..w • SIDEWALK 1'! NATURAL FEATURES ,i ,r : .... PARK i ST. CROIX SAVANNA •T 'l MRS 0 0.125 4.25 IN= smo Miles A / 1"0114 MILE i A`f Pog---05 Parks, Existing and Proposed posed Trails, SEH Sidewalks and Paths • • • "fit. Figure 5-2 141 I . , I L8J e ♦ 1 .,.::..:. :.:: : EET LAKE ` rr� ZIEW Si ECAM0171 :••; L ° 40 •.•'•*.::::'GatewayState 0• 0 19.1 ♦ I • ..*.:.:Trail Search Area a . .. Regional Trail y S stem ro ji I i r a . ;1 r:.a,x ■Ill Glacial ills "A '" mi o `'a Regional Trail r.Huoo 1 j 52i s Iss ro i AY TowksHI.P::•:...._..;. ii fl 0ii . • o) c..) 11. FM," a, w 10 �� Existing County Trail DELLWODD STI'LWATER TOWNSHIP 3 Planned County Trail 0 a i ! • NI = r.i, „G Rr"N T Reg/,na! �Br Existing Regional Trail �a��' ,,o Trail me MARTO 1EDI �g�aay , { -" 41 le •. a„ • Planned Regional Trail BIRCHWOO6 VILLAGE Iwo- Middle St. Croix WHITE L ,., 1�� Existing State Trail ♦ x�;ETILLWA�r! Valley Trail :: •• : Search Area 410 S PI ',RINGS > 66 •.. �•�. •:.. • •• as Planned State Trail a. Plit, II3J �! 1• 'hEIpHT�. 00 Trail Search Area LAKE ELMO BAYTOW N. : TO ?:B A'Y�OR;T• State Park :::::;.: •:: Planned Master Plan Boundary e F fig 1 County Park II LAKELAND Scientific and Natural Area TGwNiHO �' MI � MG s � Et MO WV r Wildlife Management Area LAND'FALL1 ''°� LAK �.i Z LA EL, ND SHORES ' 421m.. •t • r Afton BI ` s ; °= 1 m LAKE �OIX BEACH Regional frail z 3 �.If TI AFTON IT MAV.? POINT ''C' V • o.DEURY Afton Bluffs 1. . 1--i•1--a -.! • Regional Trail • • NEW •) N • i Vi /,�1��A ta it cc W ��••�•��) E o' •o .`, �-- _ Prairie Viewil Regional Trail — < . . . . . .�EE� S ST PAUL•�PA-K d,. sc Grey Cloud i TOWNSHIP # 0 1 2 3 4 5 G EY LO UIDland 11 +p IiLV • • I . Miles TOWNiHIPR .iona/Trai/b ,„, ill IP rr. COTTAGE ROVE -• 4 Point Douglas Prepared By:Washington County GIS Support Unit,IT Department `' Regional Trail Data Source:Metropolitan Council-2007,Washington County GIS Support Unit-2007 HAS T•I M cs 11P (Proposed) VWashington . County Page / 5-12 • III • Browns Creek State Trail , .• „v"1-*'", (94 Regional Context 35 MONS 35 0 ' �;-LI\ aq - William O'Brien ` State Park — Y 95 te ) , % �- _J a on+'Saint Croix gar," �, I i i Sib I e , i i 7 • ,% v Centerville `lino Lakes, Hugo . ( `� o K a ,a ; 'rte <° t w 1 � Pine Point c Reg. Park A . j North Oaks - �. 1 ,- W c /- � � �� fr { �� Dellwood ° .. 4- I White Bear Lake Grant 1 ... „., ___ ,4, ,t„.:„.... ,, , c - Mahtomedi - o --1 Laurel N _ ;'`--. Birchwood Village (D7J, �Vdnais,Heights, m Lake � t - Street ' �!� lunc ion - `° `�L .� -Whet niv '` ,,:' - Stithl.'�er •-694 ; Pine:Springs �rl -_r —Ct,:t O qt. -0 0- — — ED -Little Canada r( _ ak.ParkiHeights 0 Bayport ` ( North Saint,Paul 0, Maplewood ,t V C .., _. 1 Ili it! .4' 5 I' Arlo 4 ` lmo , 4 _ C ) I Cayuga a Street d p 694 4,'" o t • , e et M �, s t,!� , ' 35E ©mss 'f " Vie. a� ' it o0akdale� ' .4. , St: Paul-, P Lakeland i Q ' = 61 r,1 i Landfall d • g_ ya � {�-�-� ® , �� r Lakeland Shores V'4 61� L. 10 .. i_1— _ 1 Legend Browns Creek State Trail Gateway State Trail:Cayuga St.,St. Paul to... ,u„neboa ��Gateway State Trail -Duluth Junction=13.3 miles • Y Minor Civil Divisions -Pine Point Reg. Park,Stillwater Twp=18.3 miles =Fr ‘Lk Designated Trout Stream O Major Cities iState Park N o�,�anaeura • Minor Cities Browns Creek State Trail:Duluth Junction to... NA p��s_�a Es Lake,Pond, Stream, River Small Cities -Laurel St.,Stillwater=5.9 miles DNR Division of Parks and Trails ' Interstate Trunk Highway U.S.Trunk Highway St. Paul to Stillwater, via Gateway and Browns December 2011 MN Trunk Highway Creek state trails=19.2 miles r---1 l IMiles 0 1.25 2.5 5 • • • . I I LV ..' ._^ K . 1 ��••, 1. 1111 'J W 1 c Z , Q !D nJ a C M 0 d 3•..o-� .‹ p . r- t r° r0 CI 3 IN 3, • 7' -.- ', t - Many OWI] .l.l 1... ;ii - ..J a 1 ■ • r. r o u ..,,,...,, , ..,,,, ,„.,.,.,04,t,i, :.„.;,,..) '41". is,. , : :40....ii. LA fD ±. • - i:r.a1..'-a N - fib. `• .1 1 VX01 V? � Al, r .. ® ti-. • - • a• y . • 4 7�r • O • S cu x c { t ' tr If p y C gd g,:;::* "4 u,, fluN 5. �+•. i 4• :� �4,` . -ors ' LL CD �- 7�C" N O p N ♦e `r aJ �'! j/r ,•.4fl�r .^^^•.. „ '>•1 .4 - -, c a I — jay fD •�`• •-1 F 1 ' ' �• r.• , . -,)' -x ', ° i,t , �� . ,...) r . , cn 01 ir, iT: : • 0 ' . c p" r �b • a 7 rol ;zi,, :4111001515iv,„, ."'•-..4: ,,., ..„Y.-gh,•!'.4 '''.4 , a,nrii, .• . 4.4( .•A: '.....4- it N t « ti �_ gam y 1°W....15 rod , N N ItI _j :.P .}.. -ri... , "�! '; WI _ J ' •�'Ma n w 1 �`` , si �ti-fNyy b O, ~irk, f , �l' -.• '1`> 0 • Federal recreational trail program-Grants:Minnesota DNR Page 1 of 2 Federal Recreational Trail Program Program purpose: To encourage the maintenance and development of motorized, non-motorized, and diversified trails by providing funding assistance. Eligible projects: Motorized and non-motorized trail projects; maintenance/restoration of existing recreational trails; development/ rehabilitation of recreational trail linkages, including trail side and trail head facilities; environmental awareness and safety education programs relating to the use of recreational trails; and redesign/relocation of trails to benefit/minimize the impact to the natural environment. Ineligible activities: Condemnation, trail construction in federally designated wilderness areas, and facilitating motorized trail use on trails predominantly used by non motorized users prior to May 1, 1991. Who may apply: All projects must be sponsored by a unit of government, preferably in cooperation with a local trail organization. Priorities: • The Minnesota Recreational Trail Users Association annually prioritizes funding categories prior to the solicitation process. Projects that involve urban youth corps workers such as the Minnesota Conservation Corns ® ill be given special consideration. Download the Minnesota Conservation Corps Fact Sheet um for more information. Level of assistance: A 50% cash or in-kind match for eligible elements of the project proposal is required. Costs must be incurred and paid for before reimbursement. Neither this funding source nor the cash match may be used to meet existing payroll; only contract services, materials and supplies are reimbursable. Approximately $3,000,000 is available for projects annually. Minimum $1,000; maximum $150,000. Federal funds can in some cases be used as match for this program. General information: Funding comes from revenue received by the Federal Highway Trust Fund. All projects funded in 2011 must be completed by June 30, 2013. How to apply: The complete application is due on February 28, 2011. Below are links to two types of program applications-standard trail grants and equipment purchase grants: Trail Grants • 2011 Proaram Manual and Annlication Instructions um • 2011 Grant Aoolication F Equipment Purchase Grants • 2011 Eauiument Proaram Manual and Application Instructions r • 2011 Eauioment Grant Aoolication 1 Contact information: Andrew Korsberg, Trail Program Coordinator andrew.korsbera()state.mn.us or (651) 259-5642 c ISf�L- 14 t r rT 4M-A n.� / PA 124,--s+TaAt Us C.6o°-O/,afA4 'SI'— %c'1— az�5 http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/recreation/trails_federal.html 12/23/2011 tO 00 J T Ln A W N N Row# o.,- to to A A A v v. '0 tO �,ry- h' LO LO CO N to to .L. 1 1 —I r N * * T s 6 ^g. r▪ N V1 O. O = m 7 44:1; m.-t 3 N 0) 'o Ott 00 m ti 7 F'" V co C o y 00 p 0 'i ' 7 o a a 3 o v, s- $ Tie .�, 2 oo N % a w A o. y 6. •k �,+ Ph fG ^ > ; ° m ' a nm r "#g N n s v x 4a s . yN N 0. .° o• • O ",..:" O C 3 4 , r c p Q 't ' • O `�..:* vii ? N A fJ N F• - I-+ '-+ f+ '.a '.a - N - W N ■+ 0 l0 Co V Ch In A W N F+ O °1 0 N p' CO V '0 CO Cu V p 0 n v v v v n O n a < Q < Q H cal O O* N M 0' 7 N 7 d pCp vOi O K K T n n ° 7 D 00 - n ° n 7 w oa 5 7 a N '^ O1 m 7 N N n Cu N 00 n N N 'y N H ° . n c n a n 3 3 w c m v, 0 7 ° CD 7 C N 7d , 0 c 7 ' N u D a N N - - m< H N O x* n 5.j d 000 t a m =• n N N NI al N C. l0 O '50 Q - o w m n o s o 0 0 0 �. c v. c a n c c n 3 0 n n c 7 0 3 x a m 3 0 3 ° < F m 3 F' 3 Z p f 7 n _°. m 3 7 F 7 ° t y r r< o n ` •G < n 7 N •� O W c F m n c c a g a o 7 d d a r m m n n m c 0 7 p - n O p m Q 0. 8 .O „c, vv 3 $ 3 a °• o E c NF 3 c ? 01 spy = o °. n.,o ti, n v, 2 3 3 w O o c c o D' c n g < D �'<' % m ° o < '^ s v o 3 fD 3 _ 0 • w 0 O m 0 K• 7 7 7 CD O N n p n 7 ° a.< C fD n m y r7, N C d m • n n n m 0, .. O c O' i; rii <O N 7' p 3 7 n O A> 3 'n m r, c 3 c v a m mo 1,1 d v. ,7 < n a 0 7 • a 2 m m v m o H f+ 3 3 m rD ^n r 'n .<nu,gi. 8 'A 2 7 m m 3 m ° 3 ,a7.' - 0 2 a 3 ri 3 a 21 m c 8 171 + d o o x ° m ° fD a 3 o EI IL. n A N 00• R ° N n C o c 7 m c A m v m N T 3 CD N `<cu D N c C o N fD N N n N\ 1-• d 0• 01 S ,7 d 0 3 :� V 0 d Q 7.: N ry N <N N N - n 7 " - 70 a \ 7 n O -�. fD d m c,G O - m C O c d m m n n a a C G o .y- 7,1 3 o `!t-. t t,t i v, S W N N N ) N A W W W W W W W W 0 l° V A A to CO V 0, In A N r to N W W !n v lA tAo tj, A A to N co O O j, 1+ N N OD N fa N + N n V N I� F+ N . al C ut --I to 3 v v v v v f) C:- 6- V v o, w O 7 C C o2 r C.7 = N N ^ 3 'II ,11 = . N v r to F r faD f1� a 3 o '. '� N m -C j N d �. ., E = N N m F N N w 7 U C to Q-o II °c a m i w ... m _ s ,, s 0 - U- hIHfl x w w x x v x x x x ^ x x x w w,- n 3 Lo v, m t-) 3 m F o a r o. F a i o 0 m m 0, o O - fD m l„ 2 m o N c .< = o 2.10 n , 0c 1 0o c m o a ; '' - a Q o =2 m m m $ n 3 ' ?.c., v ^ n ' o O _ m <m —o o _ ov o - m N h ..g ,t O o = m 00 f T o o O f o m o Q C m.0 M y = f m 5 7 O < = N a N = 3 m I ,^. 7 n °2 F,' w m E w cQ t3 n v n w .. t • o .un a m o a c 3 S ' m ^ 7 a a 2. 3 ,,, ^ 3 a m. °- N o c , » m 3.VI cu ^ Q. H to QD d ,n 7 < N F C C a R. ° 0 o .Se H H O O �O o 00 C t<D v > g s b 3 < 3 m p Q m ,n.oD - m .,= - ° o m a v o ^ 3 3 ^ o ° m m 00 m c x < m n �. T n < v o d o N N a k N z v a c c m g m 3 ^ ^ o = o n cr. 3 °, °' m ° o o = ^ m N ^ -h m to m °. .e I C Z- . \I N N N A A A A A A A A A N N 0 LC/ CO V O1 N A W N N 0 N I I-. I-. 6 O 2 0 1 2 n w s oo• s a v d 0 K Cet▪ N 3 T _ C^ rio on 5. 0. D 0,. D O t< 0- m 0 c, 7 m N On T = C C N A I h/ 1. ® 0 IA D c cg q N "S'.......S., a z C c a N -I 70 *1:j r `--•' • • r • • • * • • • • . • • • • • p M a.b ..7 v 3 -i n 5 to O 3 m D m c D m Oo m z w n. ao `� Q o v m `° ° Z 3 m a o N 5 n n r. �' tGo • ,•v 0 3 v, 'm 3 O Ap coo O 0( c o f■ a S m C N ja C O) N '3. O ' co co p O * m 3 -4 H 7 tt O O1 p m O < C - . 00 • o s• a m a d F, D 4 m 3 a m v> > _ -i n m m 'U n O C m m '.C B m 8 R. uni 2 8 0 00 n _ to 3, ,m". D° -°• m ,i N ? u' m W in P. C. N N 8 O1 < 5 {n - `—' 3 ^ m 99 O u'i d co 5 w ^ 3 ° o a f0 d E n �° 0 0° x n o m v m 3 a Gtl '� ST J.,' . O a o* N 5. = •0 O a N o ?' ........ 8 3 r:a go a x m e 0 m 01 0 m y d H O O C O i ;Ui tIIttf m < N N N u— i D 2 O 3 < N° y N N c N .< O j m N 8 � m = C O S 8 n 0G O O ~ a 7 i d , 3 C � C G 0 A a ii .Z ry m. (7/ ...\\\\ S' \it ...- . v x Cr' j / I. i t' 5. A It al O1 l!, VI VI to Ir in In N I-. 0 lb CO ...I N A W A ID N in F+ N N N N U, V CO N D7 N Q K I� 3 V V V w m 2 Z Imo, Z Z M i C N 7 A 23 A A N m in a Ol ON ■ i �, c----- N a .O 3 A e aN A o f�l W 5• J co W C 00 F O G Ny^ C N tl" 'O H 2 G < 3 n C j 000 Oni O .P 4 J '{ m •4°, ,mod. < O1 �} o NO n N ‘iL v .J•' ,O G 7 C o iil C 0 n n 007 iii c pa o o c ,n rt 2. Z • 1 •' N • 2 o • win o •* • . • • • o-< •-o n • a • • O n N 3 A •�+ '� S 3 7 O�. N Cil N ail IUUUU > > °: o 7c m °. n m F m p J o m ? g O c ,J„ ? c ^ 3i ,. N m » O of m G1 07,< n N ri F o c m 3 'O•'. N n> = T . n > j n i 1. N am c r .O O O R 6 d N N < O. a =. c c 7 0. c G O' J = n"" N = 00 w CO n o N S N O C d C 7 N r C J K d O OOU N S N. C Q = y fD y o u OA N .0 3 3 a N N N to o N N pdp .. J H Jn T.+ .Z ne . .°: g r N 3 J d 0 .- 3 F J . n 0 oa < 7� 3 < d 3 ti < 3 % m o n ,, oo, N j m .N N o s c m c N o m m n 3 J n o o o v m to ♦ to . o d » n d p J .o n iz S ,n 01 N ° N J .'C VI '_4 00 CO OI S N N o O N ry fD 0 J 0 -• y J C y N J n 3 N F O J . 'o.°' R ° A o c n o a > > c d 'o n i o °. m d 3 so 3 f. 3 3 Isue. N 7 J 0 Oc w v ~ m s N y c JO. t (1 •O n ,D +, 9 eRe N N �. N N n O C O r F 2 C 3 N n O O N 1E2- y a a ? p S c 0 rno N. 3 .o+ c- o_< c c• g, a o c o o lo^ o ,Ji, o �, m ..CI. 1- o D v D F m J. ° o F, s o m F Sp $ 3 N D N o L> > 0 n O N Q n m c w , o J a H m J j ^'. C tT O O d N fi n l O Yi N fnt A g m i J fir g s J C N C C in OS O J n N C 0. c F ro J n '� p a `� �' d m a s ,fin w=' Uj 1 n fD 7 n — y D N t�D • . O m n n • m J O O C at vOi ti. _ ' E,-. - n O c O n n J J o m • o_ o N O 0 O N , ' N O. 7 J H H n 2 f, l's ic V tJl (IV • to cn W V a, A m p f7 w D m CD 0. CD a_ m n m m 0 T. v 0 00 d 3 « « « O « * 'C O an. v Q34d.�3 $ N ,3 3 m a $• 3 O. 3 " m • 3 < c n h C W 7 y^ -• W A • 3 Q C X O w 2 a m Xi E j 3 n 7 N 1, A iA W N 7 O N O qp v n 'm m �a- m m o m 3 d . • How Does TRLF Work? I. Background and Purpose In November 1995,the federal government established the State Infrastructure Bank(SIB) program through the National Highway System Designation Act. A SIB is a state or multi-state fund that can be used by eligible borrowers to finance transportation projects. The purpose of the SIB program is to attract new funding into transportation, encourage innovative approaches to financing transportation projects, and help build needed transportation infrastructure.A SIB operates much like a commercial bank. It offers loans and other types of financial assistance to eligible borrowers to finance transportation projects. When the loans are repaid, the funds are returned to the SIB and used to finance another set of projects, creating a continually expanding pool of money for transportation projects. During the 1997 legislative session,the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) proposed legislation which would create a SIB for Minnesota. On May 12, 1997, this legislation, known as the Transportation Revolving Loan Fund (TRLF)Act,was signed into law. The TRLF Act authorized MnDOT, the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development(DTED), and the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority(PFA or Authority)to jointly develop and administer a SIB program. MnDOT is responsible for evaluating and certifying transportation projects to the PFA for TRLF financing. The PFA is responsible for conducting a financial evaluation of the certified transportation project applicants and • setting the terms and conditions for the TRLF loans. In June of 1997, the federal government authorized Minnesota to create a SIB program and appropriated the state$3.96 million in federal incentive funds to capitalize the TRLF.All federal funds deposited into the TRLF require the concurrent deposit of a non-federal match of 25%of the federal contribution. II. Eligible Borrowers Eligible TRLF borrowers include the state, counties, cities, and other governmental entities.Although private entities are not currently eligible for TRLF financing, they may be able to enter into agreements with eligible borrowers to finance eligible transportation projects. Ill. Eligible Projects/Activities To be eligible for TRLF financing, a project must be eligible under Title 23 or Title 49 of the United States Code and Minn. Stat. [[section]]446A.085,subd. 2 (1998). Eligible projects include, but are not limited to, pre-design studies; acquisition of right-of-way; road and bridge maintenance, repair, improvement,or construction; enhancement items; rail safety projects;transit capital purchases and leases; airport safety projects; and drainage structures,signs, guardrails, and protective structures used in connection with • these projects.TRLF financing cannot be used for any toll facilities project or congestion-pricing project. 1 IV. Types of Financial Assistance Available • Federal and state law authorize financial assistance in the form of loans, loan guarantees, lines of credit, credit enhancements, equipment financing leases, bond insurance, and other forms of financial assistance. The use of the word "loan" in this document includes all of these other types of financial assistance, unless otherwise specified. V. Sources of Loan Repayment ment p An eligible borrower's possible sources of TRLF loan repayment include, but are not limited to, special assessments, property tax levies, tax increment financing, local government option sales taxes,future federal funds,future state funds, and customer fees from revenue-generating projects such as parking ramps and intermodal terminals. VI. Project Certification and Selection Process All proposals for TRLF projects will be required to go through the District/Area Transportation Partnership (ATP)process (a/k/a the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)development process). This process uses eight District/ATPs as the geographic basis for integrating transportation investment priorities within the state. Each District/ATP consists of representatives from MnDOT, Regional Development Commissions(RDCs), Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), cities, counties,transit authorities, and other transportation partners.The primary role of each District/ATP is to bring together • the transportation improvement recommendations of all of these transportation partners into an integrated list for transportation investments. Although the District/ATP process primarily addresses transportation projects to be advanced with federal funding in the next three years, it will also address proposed TRLF projects to be advanced solely with state and/or local funding, as well as TRLF projects which may be advanced or financed beyond the next three fiscal years. District/ATPs solicit potential TRLF applicants for projects in accordance with the current STIP development schedule. Because each District/ATP has its own unique project solicitation and selection procedures, applicants must first follow the instructions set forth in the District/ATP's TRLF solicitation letter. Each District/ATP has a TRLF Coordinator to answer questions and to provide TRLF Application and Information Packets to anyone interested in the TRLF program. Eligible borrowers who are interested in applying for a TRLF loan must complete the TRLF Application • contained in the TRLF Application &Information Packet and submit it to the applicable District/ATP TRLF • Coordinator for processing and presentation before the District/ATP. Each District/ATP may require TRLF sponsors to provide additional information not requested in the TRLF Application Each District/ATP evaluates, approves, and prioritizes the applications it receives using its own regionally significant evaluation criteria. If applicants have any questions about precisely how the District/ATP will evaluate and prioritize TRLF Applications,they should contact their District/ATP TRLF Coordinator. If a proposed TRLF project is located within an MPO area,the applicant must also obtain the MPO's approval for the TRLF Application and ensure the project is included in the MPO's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). After evaluating the applications, each District/ATP submits its list of approved, prioritized TRLF Applications to MnDOT's Office of Capital Programs and Performance Measures(OIM), along with the completed applications and any supplemental information provided by the applicants.All of the District/ATPs'TRLF lists are due April 15th along with the District/ATP Area Transportation Improvement Programs (ATIPs). All of the TRLF Applications approved and submitted by the District/ATPs are then reviewed, evaluated, and integrated into a single prioritized list of TRLF projects by applying the project evaluation criteria and procedures set forth in the Minnesota Statute 446A.085 and Minnesota Rule 8805.0400. Those applications for which sufficient TRLF funds exist are certified, in priority,to the PFA. For a more detailed • explanation of how MnDOT evaluates and selects which TRLF projects to certify to the PFA see MnDOT's TRLF Project Certification Methodology included in the Appendix at the end of this document. Applications not certified to the PFA will be held by OIM until the Transportation Committee of the PFA makes its final loan approval determination on all certified applications. If a certified application is rejected by the Transportation Committee, MnDOT will certify another application to the PFA from those being held by OIM.After the Transportation Committee of the PFA makes its final loan approval determination on all certified applications, applications which did not receive MnDOT certification or PFA final loan approval must be resubmitted through the District/ATP if the applicants wish to again seek TRLF financing. VII. PFA Loan Approval Process Upon receiving the prioritized list of certified TRLF projects, PFA will request that the project sponsors submit supplemental loan applications, as well as the following additional financial information (if applicable): • appropriate resolution form authorizing submission of loan application • schedule of loan disbursements • municipal profile(tax capacity, major employers, level of current debt, etc.) • current budget • • three years of financial audits • various compliance forms TRLF borrowers, other than MnDOT,will be required to provide a general obligation bond or revenue • bond to the PFA to secure TRLF loans. Borrowers providing a general obligation bond or revenue bond to the PFA will be required to retain the services of nationally recognized bond counsel to prepare the bond and related documents and to render an opinion to the PFA. For borrowers providing a revenue bond for a private activity loan, the PFA will take a security interest in privately held capital assets or real property to collateralize the loan. PFA staff will evaluate the TRLF Applications using the criteria set forth in Minnesota Rule 7380.0725, subp. 1.After the TRLF Applications are evaluated, PFA staff will provide a recommendation to the Transportation Committee of the PFA whether the loan should be approved, approved with special conditions, or rejected. The Transportation Committee is required to reject a project if the applicant fails to assure full project financing; demonstrate financial capability to repay the loan; collateralize the loan to the extent required by the PEA; develop a dedicated source of revenue sufficient to ensure timely repayment of the loan; or demonstrate its capacity to comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 446A.085,the TRLF administrative rules, the loan agreement, and the covenants of the general obligation bond or revenue bond issued to the PFA. When the Transportation Committee approves a loan, PFA sends the applicant a commitment letter. PFA and the borrower then proceed with entering into a loan agreement and bond closing. VIII. Interest Rates • PFA will use a bond market index to establish base interest rates for TRLF loans, based on whether the borrower will provide a general obligation bond or revenue bond. PFA will provide discounts from the base interest rates to make TRLF financing a viable and attractive alternative for funding transportation projects. Cities with a population of less than 5,000 will receive an additional 1%discount. PFA will establish the applicable interest rate discount based on the demand for loans and the need to maintain the long term viability of the TRLF. IX. Loan Disbursement TRLF loan proceeds will be disbursed to the borrower'on a monthly basis as project expenses are incurred. Drawdown of TRLF loan proceeds will be made only upon receipt of appropriate TRLF disbursement requests and supporting documentation and compliance with Minnesota Rule 7380.0765. Also, the PFA is not allowed to release funds to a borrower until the PFA has determined that there has been no adverse change in the financial capacity of the borrower since the day of the completion of the application.The PFA has the right to suspend or terminate funding to an applicant/borrower if the PFA determines that there has been an adverse change. X. Terms and Repayments • • The term of the TRLF financing will be based upon the"useful life"of the assets being financed. The "useful life"of the project or the term of 30 years, whichever is less, will be the maximum term for the loan;there are no minimum terms. On a TRLF loan, principal payments must commence no later than 3 years and interest payments no later than one year after the execution of the loan agreement. Capitalized interest is an eligible loan cost Generally, loans will be structured as level payments over the specified term of the loan. However, depending on certain circumstances of the project, loan repayments may be structured differently over time to the extent allowed by state and federal law. Borrowers will also be required to designate and maintain a debt service account and a dedicated source(s)of revenue sufficient to meet the principal and interest payments on the loan. XI. Federal and State Requirements All projects receiving TRLF funding must be developed, completed, and maintained in compliance with applicable federal and state laws, rules and regulations. For a more detailed explanation of TRLF • project development requirements and procedures see TRLF Project Development Procedures included in the Appendix at the end of this document. In addition, during the term of a TRLF loan,the borrower must cooperate and comply with all disclosure, inspection, and auditing requirements pursuant to the loan agreement and applicable state and federal law. Appendix: MnDOT TRLF Project Certification Methodology 1. TRLF applications are completed and submitted to the applicable District/ATP. Each District/ATP evaluates, approves, and prioritizes the applications using its own regionally significant evaluation criteria. Each District/ATP then submits its approved, prioritized applications to MnDOT's Office of Capital Programs and Performance Measures (OIM). 2. OIM staff member opens a file for each TRLF application received from the District/ATP's, prepares a cover sheet for each application, and sends copies of each application to the members of the TRLF Application Review Committee. Members of the TRLF Application Review Committee; review, discuss, and evaluate each application using the evaluation criteria set forth in Minn. Stat. §446A.085, subd. 8 and Minn. Rule • 8805.0400. Each member evaluates each application on each criterion using the following scale: o Application highly satisfies criterion =3 o Application moderately satisfies criterion =2 • o Application nominally satisfies criterion = 1 o Application does not satisfy criterion =0 Each member records the evaluation value from the above scale in the appropriate box on the "Individual Evaluation Sheet"and records the reasons for each evaluation on the application cover sheet. The committee then totals the evaluation values from each"Individual Evaluation Sheet"and records the evaluation value totals on the committee"Ranking Sheet."After all of the evaluation values are tabulated and totaled for each application,the committee examines the loan amount requested in each application and compares it to the amount of money available for loan in the TRLF. If there are sufficient funds in the TRLF to make the loan to the application with the highest evaluation total,the committee ranks that application#1. If there are sufficient funds in the TRLF to make the loan to the application with the second highest evaluation total,the member ranks that application#2, and so forth. (*If at any time there is a tie in evaluation totals, the committee examines all of the criteria,as well as any applicable TRLF account constraints, to determine how the tie should be broken and records the reasons for such determination on the applicable application cover sheets.) For example, if there are not sufficient funds in the TRLF to make the loan to the application with the fifth highest evaluation total, the committee may decide to contact the applicant to inquire whether it would be willing to accept a reduced loan amount. If the applicant agrees to the reduced loan amount, it must identify a guaranteed funding source(s)for the remaining amount of the loan request in order to be certified. If the applicant declines the reduced loan amount,the committee may examine the application with the sixth highest evaluation total to see if sufficient funds exist for that application. If they do,the committee may elect to rank that application#5. If there are not sufficient funds for that application,the committee may contact the applicant and make a reduced loan offer as 1111 described above. In addition,the committee may decide to rank a lower evaluated application higher if doing so reduces the loan amount impact of higher ranked projects on the TRLF and enables more projects to funded through the use of leveraging. (*Although there is a need to utilize the money in the TRLF in as timely manner as possible,there is no obligation to select a lower evaluated application merely because the loan amount requested is within the range of funds remaining in the TRLF or because the application could be leveraged. Also, because the PFA must at all times maintain a fiscally sufficient cash balance in the TRLF, not all of the funds in the TRLF can be loaned at once.) The committee's"Certification Recommendation" is then submitted to MnDOT's Transportation Program Investment Committee (TPIC).The"Certification Recommendation"includes a summary of the applications, the committee's"Ranking Sheet,"and a summary of the committee's rationale for each application's recommended ranking.Although the committee members'"Individual Evaluation Sheets"and application cover sheets are not included in the"Certification Recommendation" package,they are kept in the application files and are available for review at any time. TPIC reviews and evaluates the committee's"Certification Recommendation"and makes the final recommendation to the Commissioner regarding which applications should be certified to the PFA. The Commissioner will only certify those applications to the PFA for which sufficient TRLF funding exists.Applicants will be promptly notified in writing of the certification decision and the reasons for the decision. 3. The Transportation Committee of the PFA makes the final decision on which TRLF applicants will receive loans using the financial evaluation criteria set forth in Minn. R.7380.0725, subp. 1. Applications not certified to the PFA will be held by OIM until the Transportation Committee of the PFA • makes its final loan approval determination on all certified applications. If a certified application is rejected by the Transportation Committee, MnDOT will certify another application to the PFA from those being • held by OIM utilizing the same process described above.After the Transportation Committee of the PFA makes its final loan approval determination on all certified applications,applications which did not receive MnDOT certification or PFA final loan approval must be resubmitted through the District/ATP if the applicants wish to again seek TRLF financing the following year. Appendix: TRLF Project Development Procedures TRLF projects must follow either the federal project development process or the state-aid project development process.Which process a TRLF project must follow generally depends on the TRLF account where the loan originates. Federal Process:All projects receiving loans from the following TRLF accounts must follow the federal project development process: HIGHWAY(FHWA Title 23)ACCOUNT;TRANSIT (FTA Title 49) ACCOUNT; TRUNK HIGHWAY REVOLVING LOAN ACCOUNT; COUNTY STATE AID REVOLVING LOAN ACCOUNT; MUNICIPAL STATE AID REVOLVING LOAN ACCOUNT. In addition,all projects repaying loans with federal funds must follow the federal project development process, regardless of which TRLF account the loans are from.These projects must follow all applicable federal laws and regulations:such as Titles 23 and 49 of the USC and the CFR with regard to project design, procurement, construction, and operation; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and other civil rights laws; NEPA; Davis-Bacon with regard to labor wages; and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. These projects must also follow all applicable state laws and rules. III State Process: Projects receiving loans from the following TRLF accounts may follow the state-aid project development process and do not have to follow the federal process: STATE FUNDS GENERAL LOAN ACCOUNT; FEDERALLY NON-RESTRICTIVE ACCOUNT(See a copy of the TRLF Account Structure attached). These projects must follow all applicable state laws and rules; such as the Minnesota Human Rights Act,Workers Compensation, State Building Code, and Prevailing Wages. The following summary highlights significant procedural requirements associated with each process. Website http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/program/trlf how.html • • Local Roads Improvement Program The Local Road Improvement Program (MN Statute 174.52) has three types funding accounts which provide funding assistance to local agencies in construction, reconstruction, or reconditioning projects with regional significance. The three accounts are the Trunk Highway Corridor Projects Account, the Routes of Regional Significance Account, and the Rural Road Safety Account. The legislature in the 2011 special session approved an appropriation of$10 million into the Local Road Improvement Program. Funds can be spent in either the Routes of Regional Significance Account and/or the Rural Road Safety Account. Trunk Highway Corridor Account The Trunk Highway Corridor Account is used as a loan to cities, towns, and counties to assist in paying the local share of trunk highway projects that have local costs related to the trunk highway improvement and are not funded or are only partially funded with other state and federal funds. In 2003, the Legislature authorized $20 million of General Obligation (GO) Bonds for this account with the purpose to provide loans to local government to help them pay their cost participation share of MN/DOT projects. At that time only two cities have utilized this funding tool. This funding program was available for projects that had local costs related to MnDOT • trunk highway improvements and were not funded or were only partially funded with other state and federal funds. No funding is currently authorized for this account. Routes of Regional Significance Account The Routes of Regional Significance Account is used as a grant for expenditures as specified to cities, towns, and counties to assist in paying the costs of constructing or reconstructing city streets, county highways, or town roads with statewide or regional significance that have not been fully funded through other state, federal, or local funding sources. The State Aid for Local Transportation Office has established procedures for the selection of projects in this account based upon the consideration of: 1. the availability of other state, federal, or local funds; 2. the regional significance of the route; 3. effectiveness of the proposed project in eliminating a transportation system deficiency; engineering strategy is identified in Table 4.4 of the Minnesota Strategic Highway Safety Plan 4. the number of persons who will be positively impacted by the project; 5. the project's contribution to other local, regional, or state economic development or redevelopment efforts; and 6. ability of the local unit of government to adequately provide for the safe operation and maintenance of the facility upon project completion. 12/28/2011 i Rural Road Safety Account The Rural Road Safety Account is used as a grant for counties to assist in paying the costs of capital improvement projects on County State Aid Highways (CSAH's) that are intended primarily to reduce traffic crashes, deaths, injuries and property damage. Eligibility for project selection must be based on the ability of each proposed project to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes. - During the 2006 Legislative session, the legislature approved an appropriation of $16 million to fund the Local Road Improvement Program from the bond proceeds account in the Minnesota State Transportation Fund. The session law identifies $7.65 million for the Routes of Regional Significance Account with one earmark project of $500,000 for Freeborn County (CSAH 46) and $7.65 million for the Rural Road Safety Account with one earmark for the overpass on TH 10 in the city of Staples. The Rural Road Safety Account excludes the 8 metropolitan counties. • S 12/28/2011 Federal recreational trail program- Grants: Minnesota DNR Page 1 of 2 Federal Recreational Trail Program Program purpose: To encourage the maintenance and development of motorized, non-motorized, and diversified trails by providing funding assistance. Eligible projects: Motorized and non-motorized trail projects; maintenance/restoration of existing recreational trails; development/ rehabilitation of recreational trail linkages, including trail side and trail head facilities; environmental awareness and safety education programs relating to the use of recreational trails; and redesign/relocation of trails to benefit/minimize the impact to the natural environment. Ineligible activities: Condemnation, trail construction in federally designated wilderness areas, and facilitating motorized trail use on trails predominantly used by non motorized users prior to May 1, 1991. Who may apply: All projects must be sponsored by a unit of government, preferably in • cooperation with a local trail organization. Priorities: The Minnesota Recreational Trail Users Association annually prioritizes funding categories prior to the solicitation process. Projects that involve urban youth corps workers such as the Minnesota Conservation Corps ®will be given special consideration. Download the Minnesota Conservation Corps Fact Sheet Gra for more information. Level of assistance: A 50% cash or in-kind match for eligible elements of the project proposal is required. Costs must be incurred and paid for before reimbursement. Neither this funding source nor the cash match may be used to meet existing payroll; only contract services, materials and supplies are reimbursable. Approximately $3,000,000 is available for projects annually. Minimum $1,000; maximum $150,000. Federal funds can in some cases be used as match for this program. General information: Funding comes from revenue received by the Federal Highway Trust Fund. All projects funded in 2011 must be completed by June 30, 2013. How to apply: • The complete application is due on February 28, 2011. Below are links to two types of program applications-standard trail grants and equipment purchase grants: Trail Grants httn://www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/recreation/trails federal.html 12/27/2011 Federal recreational trail program- Grants: Minnesota DNR Page 2 of 2 • 2011 Program Manual and Application Instructions c • 2011 Grant Application Ern Equipment Purchase Grants • 2011 Equipment Program Manu I and Application Instructions Gicui • 2011 Equipment Grant Application ELB Contact information: Andrew Korsberg, Trail Program Coordinator andrew.korsbera( state.mn.us or (651) 259-5642 Traci Vibo, Grant Coordinator traci.vibo(a state.mn.us or (651) 259-5619 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Trails 500 Lafayette Road, Box 52 Saint Paul, MN 55155 Applications are reviewed by DNR and the state's trail advisory council, the Minnesota Recreational Trail Users Association (MRTUA). Related DNR programs: • All-Terrain Vehicle, Off-Road Vehicle and O ff-Highway Motorcycle Grants-in-Aid Programs • Cross Country Ski Trail Grants-in-Aid Program • Snowmobile Grants-in-Aid Program • Local Trail Connections Program • • Parks and Trails Legacy Grant Program • Regional Trail Grant Program • Outdoor Recreation Grant Program • http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/recreation/trails_federal.html 12/27/2011 1 co O co M co O co N co sO O M O O O O M O 00 O 00 O N O 00 O S. S'. O� O rI S. C::. N O O • 'L7 O O 00 00 O .- 00 N N d iA V1 00 b9 rl 00 00 00 0 6R cos N M G b V9 rI .--i 6+4 6R 6R EA 69 64 se 6R b9 O .at rzo N ca a o —, O In O O O In o 000 00 so 1+ 0 l O o0 0 M O - cc-) co 7 O — 'n N 00 O t� '.D 00 '. N O o0 O V1 co O 00 N 0 cn .-. N N ■0 N - - N .- b9 00 fA 69 b9 69 69 69 b9 69 69 CC 0 F a) 0 T3 b -0 a b b b b b b 4.. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N •N.. •N.. N O ... 1:: .r. .7 •� � � � •�8 8 � O O I O 1-+ O I O O 0 Q.▪ L ..+ f +O 2 O L +' G a+ Z a+ + 1+ - H z z g ° z z g Z ti z g ° ° ^O bA w w .▪� N y c b i i o o � ▪ w i. o w a � 0 v on•-, ° ` a 6 U o. N E / � 110.0 g N o ; 0 N a ca X N ° .= .5 ° o o e 0 o ``i.i V W .� • �• p ti N ti N �. N N .1. i N ,LNG' vOi •O c� .j N ,SE 'C V .4... 4, .r 0 y o b ¢,'Y,' " ,a N ° a) « 0 ro eti 6 : , a N 1 C ,x 3 ° c ° ;? o b e c) ° 0 0 A o ° o 0• C A, o c iQ'0 3 a ? o y 11 0 0 Cd 0 aNi a �. § c E x ` O .. O U N a =I as a ▪ s . -,73 ° N 0 cn ~ $.I N y N " N y C N a+ aN+ y a+ N 0 N O+ N z CJ C a o v a � 0 ° y N ." O , 3 y i c c N t N - 2 .0 ° 2 0 0 N a F a a > ' .N o N > U , U r O 0 , I.. Q g W v v a ? v ' v � c b . . T o O s r., O."Cl ° O. . E- 0 ee o x � w 0 o Q. .° o . o a W o c 2 o o ¢ 0 O i 2. 0 .o g o CD a At. a 'F4 I d 1■I d o 6 b ate' a. +. E • O a) 1..y N Z ::I F •0 a: p F a ea 0.i E N b 1r G. N F4 S 11• 11 w c .. C a y cr t�j '� �NI avi Y bD "O •6 ►�•� •'� •L COQ Oi ��' W N G4 .0 g 0 : Or =I F `^ tS [..i sy O O. bn fa ea 0 o O. C Q U o U N ; a a N 0 "7 � c n p, o 6 p L w CL .b 0 > 5 0 L a �.+ 0 L w v N y 12 ril� • •0 on y a .g .: b 0 i o o > t 0 _ u d . O. A ca 6 CO "Cl 7 C o O O R s, F0C0. ; � F a L o o a _ � %a 14 CA 0.1 p a v v J " r C 7 A °-' _ a cu a p ;� t. 7 .4, Q -4 eCL t, N rz O F o 4 . = 0 w a U a o g cam, C a d 0 U o A o U p a b es U o w y 61 o w v°, 3 c o 3 -o ° y O +, O a V a Z a °a °' a, a �, c = $ w d 1111 � x a a os H o4 * ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ CQ U U ¢ CO ¢ A W +.' I N M M M I I � I -i ✓ I ] I O Vdd ^+ -. r. .r . r. oo •-. .--i .-+ - O 1 ■ ■ 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 6 - In O -� N In 1111 Q\ -� N M N OM 0 0 . -. .+ -. .-•+ N N N N 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O _ O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 o O O 0 uI O O O o O 10 0 O O O O O O N O O O Vi o O O O O �A ='.. O O N O O '•1 V7 O O S p Vi �D O� O O O� O O O\ N O O in N 69 M O N 441 N en tin O 69 4,1) O .-+ Cr) "0 f9 I9 ~ ~a 0 R 6R 4" F 7 O •Q w N 0 0 0 O 0 0 — 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 In 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 o 0 o v o o N o O o 0 O N 0 O h tel � O O o v'i O O O U h - N 0 M h I 0 N .--. 69 0 0 M ,-+ 64 69 N 10 O\ 69 M 'O N V� N 69 64 48 69 48 69 69 69 — 69 3 69 O F ,"" N. .N. N N -N. N .N. N -N. s. s.> 2 0p 0 0p 0 •.0. O p 0 O 0p 0 p 0 p 0 p 0 o va a) d a°i+ o as a °' a c 0 0 0 ° ° " 3 E aa)) H E c0 g - 3 Q �L' o °q E cb 'ea v �y i w° aE"i °o eo y U o `�° `� x ��', ,"• ,,-.. .o°. w cC c8 'r . , °0' 14 y 'F 00i Fes.' _8 w 8 3 N 6, Y c o El 0 3 a0i o w > .i5 GG o G.) 0 w o = A E ci, 'o 0. 0 3 p -0 a" O O .? ,.0 A M 0:1 N -0 0 o ,.. 0 W 5 E .�C 0 a ❑ y '' y y b H U 0 $' to .. C a� C E. o y p p v, ^� o 0 U • �a o - 0 0 o A 0 a0i °' `�°. g x Q �''� y ai a`�i o' r�i�+ U •7.)The •� fyC 0 U '= O y .--1 0 Q[ •x.. 0 Q 00 a) U 0 U ^� N '~ +7 O ca d4 'b , 2 ,.. 1"C 2 8, o Q c bG �0 U cC 2 '0 0 0 c a 2 2 p4 .8 .+ o '� o , '� 0 iC 3 o a' °i > - o o = -� 0 a':0 0 0 w a' 0 0 = O __, 0 i+ 0 0 • o ;.a +r 0 U 0 0 N p O O O U '8 O U O 0 U ., 7.' 0 U •., 0 O' p r., 0 0 U c3 0 ,0 0 0 > 0 -O '0 0. p U �l cC .+ U 0 0. U ai a O, y .E ° v, ° v) a ° a'v) 'y A ° -o v ° F ° ° o tw ° o ° ° 2 v� ° Q $ d D 0 Z `� O a a b � C a> ra d y p o d ` > ° a d L. a a a, O x a 0 • E _ fii. F y 6 . .. L a. , V U C = 0 . d a C. 1-4 aF. ° R a ia T. a o 0 . °o o D d 0 0 a q C d 0 n aJ O a 0 E ai . w w 0 0 � o C L"' a R C ' p a' E 0 0 4 ? O N � 0 , i. O - +o 1_, L. .�s. U L ^0 a0 p ,4' x s. :d ° 0U A, 0 x C C '' N a CU d b a ai &'' U R F z U y ++ S R C: ° N o 141 0 •: d a a C s, CL M CU 40 II v a ^o a aa o o - a U E CD N. ea a a E •• o ) �f3 r21 PA A A w g A Z - cn a a x Co V ri U•a o o a a a am a 121 0 o 0 ca E - U ° x g U as o A g ,00. o b Q 6 a°i 0 4 '.. 0 U o 40 C o U o o A o +r 0 e a. .y g C C d s. U v d 0 °o a ° t. o d o �7 0 0 61 �" 'o w v� U ri U o. WO a U `7 U U �; vi U xo Z A F C. 4 • Q C.) U w A w Q U U r� Q CO U A w ++ M N N N 7 N M N M M N N .-. N .--1 U i . . 0 . — .-r — ,.. — ... -� ,.. — •--- •--i .•-i .r ^" O L I I I I 4 r O N I M O\ N M VS CS .--, . a N �O M M M 1- V -I- V•1 h in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A O o O O O O O O o O O O • O O O O O O 01 O O 0 O ---i 01 N N 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 'PP 0 0 0 0 01 0 C 01 O O O O CIO O 00, O O O O O N !s t-- M • O N O O N 0 M O O O O 00 l '•-i N in in l 0 in h N Vi In We M In d t+1 0 •O 6R 6R 1•4 .•a 1.0 1.1 1.1 r•1 .••i H ..I 1.1 01 O •V et Q a 69 6R 69 69 69 69 6R 69 69 V9 69 - ,..j M O 6R 69 EA c'n 0 Op a O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0■ .+,., O O O O O S O O co., O O O b 0 O O co; O O O O O O vi O N 01 0 d• M 0 r 0 0 0 0 h 0 N O 0 U 69 69 M V1 d' M V1 d• kr) M M 0 .� 0 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 .�+ t.4 ,.. O s. EA F 0 °q ti O z 0 ' 0 N N N N N N N 0 E" Z Z ° ° ° Z .° Z WI/ pa =0 0 .� o o F �. o � �G c O C0 0 A °p °�tc; °� '� ° :4 c'-' a) te > ` > T.o a) i t. °o w d () ) a .. ) ,..4 0 } ., .r a) Op o 2, ¢ I. e0 Q p cr) � v) w E. 4 o w H a) c cc ''" o 0 7., as + o rn , o a) r .b o v a) o 0 'o ' o 0 °U a s ) M o a to E E ) c° o c w °0 0 w ya) 0 cn o TS ) a. a)c Oh O 6 )e ° • v `i c ° ."; :o ° b> va i " a i 09 5 a.)0. 0 0 b �° xa> N " � U 0 0 c+C U a) o E. ' 0° 0 . ' . ce o .0 3 > 6 ag PI ;o .4 0 'a b .c xa) > � •o a) w a) y a) w = v x 0 Q 0 y s."ai 0 00 0) : y , b O b i o° ° Nx ° ° w o ° � � ° aE ° w g ° F y o -5 ° C7a ° w ° x en o ea CI. A L H :: a s. ea 4 ea tis U o of a a F ))1 e 6 a, a 4- N 4. est ea 6 m—a, 124 ° r 0 , ^o o 0 �, a . en 0 E PP s. V o 0 b w as R .0 o as OP '0 0 S e 0 a 0 ° a� l U CS a Ent W A N .r s s a a . 0 w i aW N3 aF va x d 4F F.3 'a C7 xa� .:.:, U 0 ar 0i a to C G b b 0 0 0 0 fa 0 O .. 0 CC CO CO CO CO CO CC R 0 R 0 :R„ 4 • • 4 A a A 4 4 4 N i. L L i t w ; a a a b a, a o CO CO w a a cO ee ee ee eis ae as R ee ea R ea w • Z V. z s, z 4 z s, z s. z i Z s. Z E. z w z V z 7. Z s. AF A F F F F AF AF A A AF AF AF A AF a, AF 0., rx 4t d U U A d d A d d a1 d a1 k" .--1 — •-■ .-1 .--- .-. .. — 1■1 .-. ... .� 0 C .-. .--i r. .-. .--. — .--- .--i .-. .-. .� .--- N I.I. N M 7 h 10 N 00 0\ 0 — N M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,--i ,.. — .. .-. .-i .-. „. .-i .-. .--, .-i ... A A A A A A A A A A A A • Oak Park Heights—MnDOT: Discussion of St. Croix Agreement Meeting 3: Wednesday,February 8,2012 Location: Boutwells Landing,Auditorium B Time: 6:00—9:00 PM (Please note time change) Agenda 1. Call Council Work Session to Order—Mayor Beaudet 2. Welcome/goals for tonight's meeting—Beth Bartz • Meeting 1—Review information,issues and constraints:"Get everyone on the same page" • Meeting 2—Identify and evaluate options,look for creative feasible solutions(summary of Meeting 2) • Meeting 3—Determine framework;identify mechanism to document agreement;identify next steps to finalize the details 3. Status of process—Beth Bartz(Beth to prepare,confirm with each side) • Confirming Oak Park Heights interests and positions • Confirming MnDOT interests and positions • Understanding the"No Agreement"Scenario&What Happens Next? 4. Facilitator's perspective on remaining cost differences—Beth Bartz • MnDOT proposal(matrix from Meeting 2—summary to be provided) • Oak Park Heights estimate in light of MnDOT proposal and legal constraints • 5. Do we want to move forward? • Caucus among groups • Facilitator proposed framework for agreement? 6. Follow up to previous discussions • Complete copy of 1995 MOU—missing attachment • Basis for Previous Exceptions—1995 MOU Research Findings 7. Next Steps and Resources to move forward • Status of bonding request-City of Oak Park Heights, Legislative representatives • Status of HPP funding following Senate 1134 • 30%Utility plan development: HPP funding for city engineering costs • Utility process moving forward 8. Identification of Next Steps 9. Concluding remarks 10. Close Council Work Session • • Summary of Interests and Positions: Oak Park Heights February 8,2012 Interests) 1. Reduce immediate costs to what can be reasonably afforded by the City. 2. Ensure that costs resulting from the project to the City are proportionate to the benefits received by the City. (Council sees this as a responsibility to its tax payers.) 3. Eliminate risk of project costs escalating as the project moves forward due to cost changes or unforeseen conditions as the project moves forward. 4. Eliminate risk of future costs to the City resulting from the project. (Do not want to commit City to future costs that will put the City at financial risk and/or do not provide benefit.) 5. Avoid property tax increases to Oak Park Height's taxpayers as a result of the project. Current Positions A. The most recent cost estimate available from MnDOT underestimates costs for the utility work itemized in the MnDOT scope. B. Some of the utility work that is currently categorized as"betterments" in the MnDOT scope should be characterized as"utilities impacted by the project" (and therefore eligible for HPP or other funding.) C. Construction of a new roadway over aging utilities is not reasonable nor does it follow sound • engineering practice as it sets up a future situation for more costly(and potentially more disruptive) repair or replacement of those utilities in the future. D. MnDOT is asking the City to agree to assume current and future costs which it simply cannot afford. E. To date the City is not interested in any offers to turnback old highway routes or frontage roads to the City as that would commit the City to increased infrastructure costs in the future. F. The City does not have an ability to participate in the maintenance costs for sidewalks,trails, landscaping, ponds,or signalizations along the frontage roads or in the Project in the Highway 36 corridor. G. The City is not able to have its staff or consultant engineering participate in further planning or design activities until adequate dollars are committed to the City for utility relocation and/or there is agreement as to the general location for these utilities to make such studies meaningful. H. Clarity is needed regarding availability of HPP funds in light of the language included in Senate 1134. If HPP funds are not available,the City will not be able to afford even the most basic level of cost participation estimated in MnDOT's most recent cost estimate. Likely next step if no agreement can be reached through this facilitated process: The City would likely be required to consider the Municipal Consent law to defend its interests. • 1 Numbering is provided for ease of reference only and is not intended to convey priority or importance. • Summary of Interests and Positions: MnDOT February 8,2012—prepared by B. Bartz,SRF Consulting Interests1 1. MnDOT will be moving forward to complete the project if congress passes the exemption to Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 2. The St.Croix River Crossing Project MnDOT will be moving forward with is the one developed by the Stakeholder Resolution process,documented in the 2006 SFEIS, and shown in the 2005 layout. 3. Reach a cost participation agreement with the City of Oak Park Heights as soon as reasonably possible to avoid or minimize project delays and increased costs to the city and MnDOT. 4. Reduce costs to the City of Oak Park Heights as much as possible within MnDOT's legal and policy framework, recognizing that the City has very limited resources. 5. Reach a cost participation framework and conduct project activities in compliance with state and federal laws. 6. Provide greater flexibility to MnDOT cost participation policy while preserving equitable treatment of municipalities' state wide. 7. Be able to continue to partner and work with the city during further project development. Current Positions • A. The 2006 estimate of utility costs should be updated with the participation of the City to ensure that the data regarding existing utility locations and impacts is as complete as possible. To develop an updated utility cost estimate, MnDOT needs direction from the city as to the City's plans for its water main and sanitary utilities. An updated cost will be more accurate if based on current cost information rather than adjusting previous estimates for inflation. B. The estimated city costs for utility relocations in the Oak Park Heights Study do not accurately reflect a scenario that can be funded with identified resources under current state and federal laws. C. MnDOT and the city are legally bound by utility statues that define how each party must treat utilities located on trunk highway right-of-way by permit, "first move"of utilities outside the highway right of way and "betterments" of existing utilities. D. Utility improvements characterized as"betterments" in the 2006 cost estimate should be revisited in consultation with the City to ensure accuracy. E. The city as the utility owner is the legally responsible party to address all city utility conflicts. F. State law does not allow MnDOT to deviate from the statute and administrative rules,which are also reflected in the provisions of the utility permits agreed to by the City at the time of the utility construction. G. State law does not allow MnDOT to have lump sum agreements for local utility costs greater than$100,000. 1 Numbering is provided for ease of reference only and is not intended to convey priority or importance. H. State law does not allow MnDOT to allocate cost participation by project benefits received rather than geographic location of improvements. I. Identified HPP funds require a 20% local match. Utility betterments are not eligible for use of HPP funds. FHWA will ultimately need to concur with eligible expenses. Eliminating the match requirement would require federal legislation. J. MnDOT is willing to reduce City costs related to maintenance of frontage roads and sidewalks/trails by MnDOT retaining ownership and major maintenance responsibilities and performing all stormwater pond maintenance. City costs would be limited to regular on-going minor maintenance(e.g. plowing, sweeping,debris removal). Ownership of these features would be discussed again when the city is eligible for State Aid funds. K. MnDOT cannot define utility betterments on behalf of the City or determine the design of relocated City utilities;these activities must be provided by the City to complete an updated 30%utility layout. HPP funds could be used to reimburse the city for about 80%of these engineering costs. L. MnDOT is willing to support City efforts to identify and secure funding resources outside of the project to the degree permitted under state and federal law. M. MnDOT is willing to consider eliminating certain project elements (frontage road sidewalks/trails,frontage road improvements,or landscaping) if they are not desired by the City and will reduce city costs. N. City may contract independently for utility reconstruction/relocation and/or construction • engineering if that would reduce City costs. It would, however, require extensive coordination with MnDOT construction activities. Likely next steps if no agreement can be reached through this facilitated process: • Provide city with utility layout identifying likely utility conflicts and continue to request further city utility coordination. • Continue project development, shifting into "high gear"once congressional action to exempt the project from Wild and Scenic River Act occurs,with construction planned to start in later 2013 or early 2014. • Continue outreach and involvement with stakeholders, agencies and local governments. • Once congressional action has been completed and a project letting date is established, issue city"Notice and Orders". Notice and Orders are issued to utility owners whenever they must relocate,adjust,or remove their facilities to accommodate a construction project. • Involve MN Office of Pipeline Safety to compel city to fulfill its utility responsibilities. • Pursue legal opinions/processes related to municipal consent and underground utilities. • Continue to try to coordinate with the city on multiple issues related to construction of the project. • • Oak Park Heights / MnDOT Project Cost Discussion Areas February 8, 2012 The following summarizes the cost discussion areas shown in the Meeting#2 matrix and further defines areas to address those costs. There is no offer or decisions made or inferred at this time. This is for discussion purposes only and meant to continue to work towards a possible agreement. The city has defined the following three general cost areas in their"St Croix River Crossing Project— Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights- November 2011." Further information is summarized below related to each area. A fourth area Potential Funds Areas is also discussed. 1. Direct up-front costs a. Utility Relocations and Reconstruction—a utility layout that shows existing city utilities and utilities likely to be impacted by the project is being prepared by MnDOT and will be provided to the city. "First Move" areas will be identified on the layout. Direction is required from the city on how the city wants to adjust its utilities and any proposed utility betterments the city plans. High Priority Program (HPP)funds are available to offset 80%of eligible city utility costs and the use of HPP funds should be maximized to the extent allowed. • b. Signalization Costs—the Metro Division is pursuing an exception to MnDOT cost policy to cover the 20%match requirement for the HPP funds that are planned to be used for the local project costs in the traffic signals. With the use of HPP funds and the exception (if approved)the city up-front costs in the traffic signals will be eliminated. c. Stormwater Treatment—an exception to the MnDOT cost policy was previously granted to provide the 20%match requirement for the HPP funds that are planned to be allocated to offset local project costs in the stormwater ponds. With the use of HPP funds and the cost exception locabcosts for the stormwater ponds has been eliminated. d. Street Lighting—Street lighting is currently proposed only at the signalized intersections and those costs are accounted for in the signal estimate. No additional street lighting is proposed or has been requested by the city. 2. Delayed—long-term costs—Twenty Year Horizon for Maintenance MnDOT has provided the city with a good faith cost estimate that outlines the areas the city is expected to have project costs. Maintenance costs are not accounted for in these estimates. It is acknowledged that the city would be taking on additional costs for maintenance of items related to the project that city budgets do not account for and thus place additional burden on the city. The costs incurred relate to ownership and/or maintenance(minor and major) responsibilities for the 11111 Page 1 of 3 • following project features: 60th St(south frontage road), Lookout Trail, Club Terra/city park parking area,trails/sidewalks,traffic signals, lighting, stormwater ponds,storm sewer, landscaping and turf. a. Minor and Major maintenance—in order to substantially reduce city maintenance costs, in particular long-term liability cost concerns by the city, MnDOT proposes that the state be responsible for most major maintenance activities and the city some minor maintenance activities. b. Stormwater ponds—State proposes to retain ownership of ponds and all major and minor maintenance responsibilities for these drainage features. City future cost liability may occur if city actions contribute to degradation of feature. c. Storm sewer—Ownership and maintenance of a roadways storm sewer system will go with the ownership of the roadway. Example 60th St(south frontage road)while MnDOT owns state will be responsible for maintenance, if/when roadway becomes city owned the city would be responsible for maintenance. There may be some storm sewer runs that are rebuilt with the project to perpetuate existing city drainage that would remain in city ownership. d. Vegetation-Ownership and maintenance of vegetation will generally go with the ownership of the roadway. MnDOT mows 1-2 times per year, if the city desires to mow some areas more frequently the city could take on additional responsibilities through a permit process. e. Trail Maintenance and Reconstruction—MnDOT will construction trails and sidewalks with • the project. MnDOT proposes to retain ownership of the trail and major maintenance responsibility and that the city conduct minor maintenance. Major non-routine maintenance (resurfacing and seal coating)conducted by the state. Minor routine maintenance (plowing,sweeping,debris removal, mowing, patching, signage, pavement markings)conducted by the city. If minor trail/walk costs are still too high, it is suggested that the trail or walkway not be constructed or reduced in scope. f. Traffic Signals—city currently has minor maintenance responsibilities for the Oakgreen/36 signal. Those costs may be reduced with newer, more efficient equipment when it is replaced. Statewide policy is for the city to have minor maintenance(power, maintain luminaires, relamping, and cleaning and painting as required)and the state conducts major maintenance (all other signal maintenance activities). g. 60th St and Lookout Trail-To continue to defray local maintenance costs on these items, MnDOT proposes to retain ownership of these non-trunk highway roadways: 60th St(south frontage road)and Lookout Trail (former TH 212) until the city is eligible for State Aid funds (city population above 5000)at which time the city and state will re-engage in turn-back discussions. h. Club Terra/city park parking area—MnDOT is funding the construction of a parking lot near Club Terra as a Section 106(historic properties) mitigation item. Discussion to date has Xcel owning the underling property,city having an easement for the parking facility,and the owner of Club Terra having some maintenance responsibilities. Page 2 of 3 • 3. Direct Incurred costs to date These costs relate to the homes removed in the lower village area in the mid 1990's and potential loss tax base if the city decides to relocate city utilities into new utility easements. There is no mechanism defined in statute that allows the state to"compensate,"or for that matter, "charge" a city for increased or decreased tax value due to a construction project. 4. Potential Funding Sources a. High Priority Program funds(HPP)—HPP funds were provided in SAFETEA-LU for the project to offset eligible project costs, including city utilities. Their use is subject to eligibility and available amounts. HPP funds provide more flexibility to cover local costs that are not available with traditional state and federal transportation funding sources. Changing the federal/local match requirement from 80/20 to 100/0 would require federal legislation. b. Transportation Revolving Loan Funds(TRLF)—this loan program is provided for in state statute to assist with funding public transportation projects. The TRLF program provides low interest loans for up to 30 years. c. Local Road Improvement Program(LRIP)—There are three sub accounts under this program the Trunk Highway Corridor Project Account, Routes of Regional Significance Account and the Rural Road Safety Account. Of the three accounts,only the Trunk Highway Corridor Account appears to be a viable mechanism to address local costs. However,this • sub-account does not currently have available funds in it for loan or grant. d. State Bonding—State bonding is for capital expenditures, maintenance costs and lost tax revenue are not eligible for bonding. e. State Aid City Exemption—redefining the state aid population threshold or adding the City of Oak Park Heights into the State Aid System without them meeting the state aid population requirements would require a legislative change to MN Statute 162—State Aid Road Systems. 4110 Page3of3 • • cu e E Z. C -0 la c Y Q N C i+ 0 1O N a 'N V C Y O X E C a O O Y ea -cs no o c . o c C N• 7 E 1/' 0. o a a s N C as N N Y N N_ N }' E U O O F= a a E +a. co Us .n i s 3 a co c co E .1'd ro C C -0 c `� a 1U/I 'a - . U N = N Q 0 4a+ N O N Q -a co C O 'C O a Eto N a C fo E -0 cco I— O -0 > O a L E .X >> Q 03 O 'd co U U C1.1 L �_ a E 4 _ y, p i co a c o L E CC :t -0 c °) v CU Q O C N CU C a C 0 C o aci o f L 4-4 co a Y = Q O. C a -0 C 4 N o 'L-. C .� O Y O L " 0 V o C '0 U, co vi 0 O. 2 as c a - a +� a no E ;, o ao c cu 411P o h I- i .- E 0`t > '.E-- h E e) E a L. t > `� I- > Y co i > +L• 0 = O O a a N O O a CO co o +� o ' O a o co ca 0 a tan' -C3 n, p U E cn 0. Y CC a p v in Y a a a U p p u a Y a E 0 vi O, a, i c CO c CO O CO • oc CC Cp 2 • • O • 2 • • O • • • U cu c '0 h E t O a v a v 4- U a m o c 0- O c vs V1 m C —a�j a) O CU c-3o > X YO yr .Q Y 'r O la a !. V cu N Y O Y E a C C O O Cu cu 0.O a n L o f o E a +' -0 0 4 a a `o c Lon co( o 4 Z U n a c +� a a O O Ca E 3a° E N a Z c t c o t U C 4/) N E to F� o c a +J 0 O E ° X a a C0 t co U a a Q O CO 0 o . E o c u a a C > c �' - CO Y cis Q Y a o X - L U O = O CO c N a a a a1 , Y I . O i a U 0 ... ti to X to .0 cp C .L 0 o O a o — o -_aa E as U vi ms N E U Q Y a O 4111K 06 tt a 'c x a • • OL 7 Cl. ti 1n > o -a 2 E 4- t:3 -c) O a m U a) CL . OD L 'aI 132 ro •+>+ V1 " .-O L N U ••C)n vvi CU y - a� G) I- —• E u a`n -0 a) coo 0 ° Q- C +� ++ N O▪ N L W .4-, a-+ 'a N '� O OV N Q c CL N O i i O N N it 0 O U Y CL C CU O a a� N CO 7 E N as a) CO C� -°_ C C N -0 a) L L ++ L ° l6 O a O > � 3 °° °one .0 c - -0 o aai m O N v '� O C a-+ Q) s. a) 3 N E ° v E c L "a ;a1 S 0. E a) N • C 4-' a- • co) ca • O O +-+ >. O L (O E OO N N 0. CD to a) CO 4 CO CO +' ," l6 .0 � C 'a co _. O a).L — O i L1 N N c •E -a Co O. O- Z• i° i +O a) O N Co ° C ° C Q) N co LJ X N O .N -° U j a) CO Q. a) E a) v�'i O •N a) O a) .° is O O C= a) }, V OD Cz E N L M > Co CO t ca 0 o- m c a) aa) s N 3 0u ' > .co ° 4'e'' , � CO C + N a) m L >. an X' ao 0 >, O an = U Ca C a) N ..c a)L t 00 Son t 0 4-, ++ O U N Q Q) CO E a) la a•+ ++ L 0 .0 2), a°) s o c3 s ,- 4-, 4-,E a) o 2Q' t = N o H N Q S i a) v+'i 0 L C C c a) C f0 N ' C Ca Q i i t' ? • V) V) v •ao a s p N a CO ° V) et"- -_va W O co E O 0 a ° Cl. p < < a p p Q L v U co p L co u p V) a) Q C CO C C4 C O C C9 2 • • • 0 • E • O • • • • 2 • O • 2 • O • • N ' 0 4- Ca +N+ cu - N CU IA _ L 0 CO O -O COO 0 a) = co c =C - ++0 N i(13 CO N• ° ' a) E > N . 0 N v E c 0) — O +' a°i •do .E " E 40 ++ N ▪ '+-' "0 a. N Q) '� C L C Q) 3) L m Un a \ co ? CD ▪ co as 0 > O C N a� i L a>+ a"' 2 O > N 0 yr M O C 4- M c C a•+ > - co N O co CI)O t' U a) ° a) •- O Q) C ate., > °v +' _a) Q. Q. E N u Y E c) a) �O C ro a) N Q) 7 E 7 O L S O +' a) V) a) 0 N CO C L 0 � N L N L N L 0 L N O 0. L ra +' t O E Ca_ 0 O a) O 0_ a +' on ' O o 0 3 `) L u +r E 72 a .0 C !}'6 +�-• a� N N L ate-+ O 0 •6 C a'., = a) on °) N N a' N a) o aO, a) E Ca O ' N a°i � a) a) o a) :E " = m C m ? E 0 f1 C C } Y V = .v C >. On to O c G) ▪ 3 v c v N• •a .;r., C C C C O O •a) N 00 7 C L a) N N N CO a) •0 0 0 0 ++ Y C O N N 'C3 10 i -a O -0 L z a u v C c a) -0 ,." N '^ 3 •X hn N 00 •• • • • C ..' c '\/1 �C N V N Q. Co a) a) a) f0 S -0 y I-- - Cn CV 4, 0) o W L. 0 Josephson, Adam (DOT) Srom: Josephson,Adam (DOT) ent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 9:45 AM To: Eric Johnson Cc: McBride, Scott(DOT); Clarkowski, Todd (DOT) Subject: RE: Senate Bill (Just combing all the answers to your questions in to one response) The short description in regards to your question about S1134 and the Section 3—OFFSET and Section 4—BUDGETARY EFFECTS language. The "Pay-as-you-go-Act of 2010" requires that bills be revenue neutral. It was determined that the project identified in this bill facilitated the spending of HPP dollars in the SATEFEA-LU Bill and thus an offset would be required in the bill for the amount of the unobligated HPP funding. The amount of unobligated Minnesota HPP funds is currently about $8M. The offset is identified as coming from future obligation authority for Federal-Aid Highway and Highway Safety Construction programs distributed to the state. The actual offset dollar amount will be determined at the time the HPP funds are obligated. The short answer is the HPP funds are still available for use to offset eligible local utility costs. House Bill HR 850 does not refer to an offset. Presumably any language related to a budgetary offset will need to be resolved between the two bills. flifregards to the HPP$'s they are for the purposes designated in SAFETEA-LU,which includes utility relocation as has een discussed. The legislation is dealing with the offset funding issue and not the SAFETEA-LU language. My view is the primary action that is required is that the city and state need to come to agreement. Adam Josephson, P.E. Mn/DOT East Area Manager Waters Edge Bldg 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 651/234-7719 From: Eric Johnson f maiito:eajohnsonOcityofoakparkheights.coml Sent: Tuesday,January 31, 2012 8:06 AM To: Josephson, Adam (DOT) Cc: McBride, Scott(DOT); Clarkowski,Todd (DOT) Subject: RE: Senate Bill Adam, �re these funds still specifically pledged as of this date to the purposes already identified? Or is there some additional ction that is required? Thanks 1 September 2009 UTILITIES MANUAL 60 • Step 12: Notice and Order and Utility Relocation Permit Issuing Notice and Orders and utility relocation permits before project construction paves the way for early relocation I. Notice and Order The Notice and Order is a critical document that provides the official vehicle by which Mn/DOT exercises its authority to order a utility owner to relocate facilities to accommodate project construction. According to Minnesota Statutes, section 161.45 and Minnesota Rules,part 8810.3300, a Notice and Order is issued by the Utilities Engineer on behalf of the commissioner of Transportation to utility owners whenever they must relocate,adjust, or remove their facilities to accommodate a construction project. The Notice and Order provides notice to utility owners of the upcoming construction project and orders.them to relocate,adjust, or remove their facilities by the specified date. All projects requiring a Notice and Order will be processed through a Process B letting. A. Timing Notice and Orders are sent to all applicable utility owners before the letting of the project. Ideally,utility relocation permits also are issued before the letting of the contract. When a utility relocation permit is issued more than 45 days before the letting,the Notice and Order will be sent at the same time that the approved permit is . available for the utility owner to pick up at the district office.The Notice and Order includes a date for completion of the utility relocation based on the contract time provisions and project construction staging utility relocation schedule.For an example of the Notice and Order, see Appendix BB. In cases where a permit has not been issued at least 45 days before the letting,the Notice and Order should be sent to the utility owner as soon as possible.Issuance of approved permits and agreements,if applicable,would follow. B. Non-Reimbursable Relocations In cases of non-reimbursable utility relocations,the Utility Agreement Writer prepares and mails the Notice and Order at the same time that the approved permit is available for the utility owner to pick up at the district office. C. Reimbursable Relocations For reimbursable utility relocations,the Agreement Writer prepares and sends the utility owner the fully executed agreement and Notice and Order at the same time the approved permit is available for the utility owner to pick up at the district office. D. Asbestos Removal Language On bridge replacement,removal,renovation, or repair projects,utility facilities with asbestos may be present. These types of projects involve identification of bridge components with asbestos as well as identification of utility facilities on the bridge, 10 and include an asbestos assessment. September 2009 UTILITIES MANUAL 61 District offices notify the Mn/DOT Utility Agreements and Permits Unit if asbestos • abatement is required for utilities, so the Utility Agreement Writer can include language in the Notice and Order that: • Asbestos abatement will be required • It will be completed as part of the Mn/DOT construction contract • The utility owner will receive an estimated cost for the work and an invoice for the asbestos abatement work completed by Mn!DOT's contractor on non-interstate projects Consistent with other utility reimbursement practices on interstate projects,Mn/DOT reimburses for asbestos removal. II. Permits • A. General Utility owners submit permits either as part of a highway construction project that requires utility relocation or to accommodate changes or additions to their facilities. A utility owner receives a permit application from Mn/DOT when a highway project necessitates a relocation of its facilities. The utility owner must contact Mn/DOT for a permit application or access a permit application online when it wants to make. changes to its own facilities that are within Mn/DOT right of way and are not related to highway projects(see Permits for Utility-Initiated Projects on page 92). Before beginning work, a utility owner must receive an approved permit from • Mn/DOT. The permit helps the state ensure that the utility will not: • Conflict with the project construction • Interfere with the safe flow of traffic • Impair the highway or its visual quality • Conflict with any other future Mn/DOT projects • Conflict with any provisions of federal,state,or local law,rules, regulations,or the Mn/DOT Utility Accommodation Policy(see Appendix B) The Utility Agreements and Permits Unit is the overseer for this step. This step also involves: • District Permit Staff • Utility owners • Construction Group • Project Manager • Office of Bridges and Structures B. Permit Types Mn/DOT issues long-form and short-form permits: 1. Long Form No.2525,Application for Utility Permit on Trunk Highway Right of Way This form(Appendix X)is used to request permission to place, construct, reconstruct, and thereafter maintain permanent overhead and underground Appendix BB S.P. (T.H._J 111 UTILITY OWNER NOTICE AND ORDER Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 161.45 and Minnesota Rules, part 8810.3300, subpart 3, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) hereby issues this Notice and Order to Utility Owner(Utility Owner),which, according to Mn/DOT's records, has certain facilities in the right of way of Trunk Highway Number . Mn/DOT will be constructing a project on, along, and adjacent to Trunk Highway Number from to in County, Minnesota. This project is currently scheduled to begin on This project will affect Utility Owner's facilities on the right of way of Trunk Highway Number that are within the construction limits of this project. This Notice and Order requires Utility Owner to immediately begin to relocate or adjust its affected utility facilities pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 8810.3300, subpart 3 [USER NOTE: Add the following text when there will be an agreement:] and (pending)Agreement Number . Utility Owner must follow the steps below to comply with this Notice and Order. UTILITY OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES Prior to the date set to commence the project or a later date determined by Mn/DOT, Utility Owner must: • Contact Mn/DOT's Construction Project Engineer to obtain specific contract time provisions • and project construction staging; • [USER NOTE: Add this paragraph if the plan and schedule have not been submitted:] Submit a plan and detailed schedule for all relocation or adjustment activities according to the contract time provisions and project construction staging to Mn/DOT's Construction Project Engineer no more than 15 days after receiving this Notice and Order; • [USER NOTE: Add this paragraph if this information has not been submitted:] Provide the name, address,telephone number,fax number, and e-mail address of the person who will be in charge of the relocation or adjustment operations in the field; • Begin procuring the materials required to relocate or adjust Utility Owner's facilities; • [USER NOTE: Add this paragraph if the permit application has not been submitted:] Obtain an approved Utility Permit prior to starting any fieldwork related to the relocation or adjustment of Utility Owner's facilities on trunk highway right of way by submitting a completed Application for Utility Permit, Form 2525, including two copies of the"proposed" sketches to the [USER NOTE: Choose one of two options:] Utilities Engineer/or/project manager; • Obtain the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit to perform relocation or adjustment work that will be accomplished before Mn/DOT's contractor begins construction; • Perform Utility Owner's work according to the NPDES Permit issued for this project; • Restore drainage and slopes to their original conditions and Mn/DOT's Construction Project Engineer's satisfaction; • Restore all pollution control measures and devices that Utility Owner's relocation or adjustment operations disturbed; • Relocate or adjust the facilities according to Mn/DOT's Policy for Accommodation of Utilities on Highway Right of Way; • • Obtain Mn/DOT's Construction Project Engineer's written authorization to work on trunk highway right of way before beginning the relocation or adjustment work; and • [USER NOTE: Choose one of two options:] Complete the relocation or adjustment of the facilities on this project by , unless a different date is authorized in writing by Appendix BB S.P. (T.H. ) Mn/DOT's Resident Engineer or its Construction Project Engineer./or/Complete the • relocation or adjustment of the facilities on this project no more than working days after receiving this Notice and Order unless Mn/DOT's Resident Engineer or its Construction Project Engineer authorizes, in writing, a different number of working days. Note that the completion date or dates for the relocation and adjustment of the facilities established through this Notice and Order take precedence and continue to control the Utility Owner's obligation in spite of any completion date or dates established in any Utility Permit. CONSEQUENCES OF NONCOMPLIANCE If Utility Owner fails to comply with this Notice and Order, Utility Owner will assume all liability and save the State of Minnesota harmless from any and all claims of damage of any nature that result from that noncompliance. Also, Mn/DOT reserves the right to: • Take any action necessary to compel Utility Owner to comply with this Notice and Order; and • Withhold issuance of future utility permits requested for Utility Owner's benefit until Utility Owner has fulfilled the requirements of this Notice and Order. Date: Thomas K. Sorel Commissioner of Transportation By: Marilyn Remer, P.E. • Utilities Engineer • Overview of the 15-Step Utility Coordination Process Step 1 Utility Identification for Construction Projects: Early identification of existing utilities within the corridor supports the development of accurate plans. In this step, the Mn/DOT project manager initiates a Gopher State One Call (GSOC). Utility owners provide GSOC with information and respond to Mn/DOT requests for information. Step 2 Utility Contact for Information Sending information to utility owners allows them to verify their facilities. In this step, Mn/DOT prepares plan sheets and easement questionnaires for utility owners. Step 3 Utility Information Meeting: Mn/DOT and utility owners explore project impacts on utility facilities. In this step, utility owners verify facilities, mark locations and discrepancies on plan sheets, and submit any easement and reimbursement documentation. The Mn/DOT project manager invites utility owners to an information meeting to begin discussions about impacts and possible solutions. Step 4 Review of Information from Utility Owners • Review and incorporation of utility owner information moves plans forward. In this step, the Mn/DOT project manager reviews the plans marked up by utility owners and information from the meeting, and updates the Mn/DOT plans as appropriate. Step 5 Utility Design Meeting The Utility Design Meeting facilitates relocation solutions. In this step, the Mn/DOT project manager invites utility owners to a Utility Design Meeting to review updated plans and discuss resolution of any potential utility conflicts. Step 6 Request for Utility Relocation Plans Requesting utility owners to submit detailed plans, schedules, and estimates during design allows for better results in construction. In this step, the Mn/DOT project manager sends utility owners a set of project plans and a permit application. Utility owners prepare the relocation plan, detailed schedule, and estimates for reimbursable utility relocations, complete the permit, and include information for utility special provisions and contact information. Step 7 Utility Coordination Follow Up Mn/DOT continues to coordinate relocation details with utility owners. In this step, the Mn/DOT project manager may contact the utility owner with additional • questions. Utility Owner Overview 8/20/2009 Step 8 Utility Design Change Meeting 11111 Some projects may require a Utility Design Change Meeting. In this step, the Mn/DOT project manager invites utility owners to participate in a Utility Design Change Meeting, if necessary, to discuss and resolve any issues that may have arisen from changes since Step 5. Step 9 Gopher State One Call Utility Verification In this step, the Mn/DOT project manager contacts GSOC no more than 90 days before final plan submittal. Utility owners provide GSOC with information and respond to Mn/DOT requests for information. Step 10 Utility Relocation Plan and Schedule Review In this step, the Mn/DOT project manager leads the review of utility relocation plans and schedules with the assistance of Mn/DOT construction personnel. The project manager may contact utility owners with questions. Step 11 Reimbursement and Utility Agreements Agreements detail the financial responsibility of utilities and Mn/DOT. In this step, utility owners provide any additional documentation and sign agreements for Mn/DOT to execute. Step 12 • Notice and Order and Utility Relocation Permit Issuing Notice and Orders and utility relocation permits before project construction paves the way for early relocation. In this step, utility owners make plans to complete the relocation by the date in the Notice and Order and pick up the approved permit from the district. Step 13 Utility Information in Contract Documents Mn/DOT includes utility information in the request for bids. In this step, the Mn/DOT project manager prepares applicable utility special provisions for contract documents. Step 14 Construction Communication and documentation facilitate efficient coordination. In this step, utility owners by law are required to attend the pre-construction meeting and respond to GSOC locate tickets, and must complete the relocation according to approved plans and schedules. Step 15 Close Out Procedures provide direction for payment and resolution of reimbursement issues. In this step, utility owners submit the final invoice, an itemized statement of costs, and as-builts to Mn/DOT for any reimbursement requested. • Utility Owner Overview 8/20/2009 I ,: 3 3 r a m If i;4' i s l'i‘4.4.. i,‘ : _,403:› , 'i'T 4,7 2°1-. 1: _,".'4:'''' —<2 1I Rj,' - s II .. ZJ zz 1S O �t P, N , C"') t/,Cn to W I 1 '[J o 1,,,.19_ �l S S •G — I H.I l� g r=r < fro, 2= �1 N'- __< O2 1 0 1 C F(p jl ("�C7 f') I{IIt� W r Lp . 77tH _- !o ' o ..,.y o to co 4 is rd. _ F/ -i e I i 1I- ro- CD I, - I ik\ { r . • 1 1 Upper Chart as of City of Oak Park Heights November 10th 2011 Summary of Total Anticipated Costs/Estimated) Estimated Cost Impacts • • using foil 80/20 SPIR-All • Using Low Range-Utility Using Mid Range Utility Using HI Range Utility Utilities would be Costs-Scenario 1 Costs-Scenario 2 Costs-Sosnado3 replaced-Scenario 4 Direct up-front costs - Utility Relocations or Reconstruction $ 766,000 $ 6,368,545 $ 11,970,000 $ 3,007,450 Signalization Costs $ 63,976 $ 63,976 $ 63,976 $ 63,976 Subtotal$ 829,976 $ 6,432,521 $ 12,033,976 $ 3,071,426 Delayed-lose-term costa.-(Twenty Year Horizon) Signalization Maintenance $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 Trail Maintenance , $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 • Trail Replacements $ 358,497 $ 358,497 $ 358,497 $ 358,497 Pondtng Maintenance • $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 Ponding Clean-up and Rehabilitation $ 1,063,554 $ 1,063,554 $ 1,063,554 $ 1,063,554 Frontage Roads $ 3,797,933 $ 3,797,933 $ 3,797,933 S 3,797,933 Subtotal$ 5,634,984 $ 5,634,984 $ 5,634,984 $ 5,634,984 Direct Incurred Impacts to Date Lost Tao Base-$1,624,197 in total lost Tax Capacity 111 Subtotal$ 487,259 S 487,259 $ 487,259 $ 487,259 Cost Impact Estimates(2)I$ 6,952,219 $ 12,554,764 $ 18,156,219 $ 9,193,669 111 Figures utilized are calculated by$1,624,197 in lost TC TIMES an average Tax Rate of.30-homes lost in Village Area (2)Does NOT include my costs for utility easement acqusidm-Soo P7 15 0036 of Nov 10ib OPH Study Undetanelned Costt 1 WemW1997,1.4:01 oma.awtanimm roseessosee vulw.p ord.ay.rumor SAO,..e unglolmulvmmo-05100.SMmtoe mn. 5e..,mama the Co..f00 0.11510.............,don............Raul 02. 2 roma..a.nbao aces boon,eamaswnnk impels tomes-too m ,Itdewat she Into meaningful detail e.o banes...Oen doing and m,potsbur.,xnc,memncndcrebrm Mu.pcm ■ • • City of Oak Park Heights Summary of Total Anticipated Costs(Estimated-with Revislosn Based on MNOOT MEMO-Feb 8th 2012/State Bonding Capadty 51,000,000 1 Using full 80/20 Split-NI (Ding Low Range-Utility Using MId Range Utility Using Si Range Utility Utilities would be Costs-Scenario 1 Costs-Scenario 2 Costs-Scenario 3 replaced-Scenario 4 Direct uo-front costs - _ Utility Relocations or Reconstruction $ 766,000 $ 6,368,545 $ 11,970,000 $ 3,007,450 Signalization Costs Subtotal$ 766,000 $ 6,368,545 $ 11,970,000 $ 3,007,450 Delayed-lone-term costs.-(Twenty Year Horizool Signalization Maintenance $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 Trail Maintenance $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 000,000 $ 200,000 Trail Replamments $ - $ - $ - $ - Podding Maintenance[IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY L4NGUAGE3 $ - $ - S - S - Ponding Clean-up and Rehabilitation(IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE) $ - $ - $ - $ - Frontage Roads 1 IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE) 5 - $ - $ - 5 - Subtotal 5 240,000 $ 240,000 $ 240000 $ 240,000 Direct Incurred Impacts to Date Lost Ten Bate-$1,624,197 in total lost Tax Capacity."' Subtotal$ 487,259 $ 487,259 $ 487,259 $ 487,259 APPLICATION OF Additional$1,000,000 from State Capadty(2012 legislation)$ (1,000,000)$ (1,000,000)$ (1,000,000)$ (1,000,000) Cost Impact Estimates(2) ,' i , -NY) ay rl nr Figures utilized are calculated by$1,624,197 m lost TC TIMES an average Tax Rate of.30-homes lost in Village Area (2)Does NOT include any costs for utility easement acqusiooe-See Page 15 of 36 of Nov 10011 OPH Study Undemrmined Cons 1 hohe n,a-1990.,.0007 moored moo lode ro Ow ton an the vua.enn ofO w Coy,nom or.a,d,wewW.(My bona«.65 bona.sbowa dux home Mm=mi.On Gm'or 0.1 Pak linA..a wocuvosn doer te mamma e00 Rind Old. 2 edBemsl a.ub[t<mwdrcaaMabmuraumomo FnpeetsbtMSm f6wrlaor,ndmno0 imam.cnlnrNl snllnobu.NeaeluupduneuniyaM r Mile lnMrmmen on Mmbk n b 1,w S • • Oak Park Heights—MnDOT St Croix River Crossing Project Issues (DRAFT by Mn/DOT - July 2, 2009) (UPDATED BY CITY 7-28-09) (Composite by Mn/DOT Oct 2, 2009) Process to resolve critical issues • Define critical city and state issues • Define differences and agreements of each critical issue, i.e. positions • Prioritize critical issues (deal breakers for city and state) • Misc issues (non critical issues) list issues separately to be worked out at a staff level. • Further discussion's to resolve critical issues (who should be involved?) • Follow up meeting with City Council members, Mn/DOT management and staff. • Formalize agreement(format?) • City and state approval Critical Issues to Resolve Critical issues -defined as issues the city council and Mn/DOT management need to discuss and resolve and without resolution the city and state will not be able to approve. 1. Cost Participation Issue: There is Mn/DOT proposed city cost participation for construction costs related to traffic signals, city utilities impacted by construction, city utility betterments, and stormwater ponds. o Cost estimate prepared in 2006, identified city costs of$1.9M, costs need to be updated to year of construction(2014) o HPP funds available to offset 80% of eligible city costs • City— a) Determine affordable level of contribution b) Identify potential additional funding sources and cost containment measures c) Seek alterations to policies and statutes to assist city d) Consider that City cost sharing costs be capped and then potentially indexed to a manageable standard • Mn/DOT— o Identified city cost participation is based on Mn/DOT cost Participation Policy and state statutes. o City costs related to design of utilities are not allowed under state statute, see"cost of relocation"(161.46) and(8810.3300, subd 3). The 1995 MOU(item#16)provided that the state would reimburse . the city for these design costs. HPP is available to cover 80%of eligible city costs. DRAFT Document—work in progress for October 2, 2009 meeting Page 1 of 4 2. Maintenance Issue M1: 60th Street(i.e. the south frontage road) and Lookout Trail once improved should become locally owned and maintained city streets because they serve primarily a local function. • City—City does not have immediate financial resources to take over these roadways; would the County be willing to assume these roadways? Discussion of Historic Lookout should occur as to maintenance and future restoration. • Mn/DOT—these two roadways serve primarily a local function and best serve abutting property owners if owned and maintained by the city. Issue M2: Maintenance of Landscaping: The Visual Quality Manual (January 2007)proposes extensive landscaping be installed with the project. • City—The City does not have financial resources to maintain installed beautification along roadways. Any and all grasses,plantings, etc cannot become the City's responsibility. • Mn/DOT—Maintenance of landscaping will be the responsibility of the authority that has jurisdiction for the roadway and/or ownership of the property. Issue M3: Maintenance of Stormwater Ponds: City, County, and Mn/DOT have • stormwater that contributes to the ponds constructed with the project. Stormwater management is required by the permitting agencies. • City—The City does not have the financial resources to maintain all planned ponds. Any and all ponds must remain Mn/DOT's responsibility. Do the new ponds all flow eastwardly? • Mn/DOT—Future maintenance responsibilities are pro-rated to amount of water contributed to pond by jurisdiction. Issue M4: A loop trail and a trail along the south side of 60th Street are planned with the project. • City— a) The City cannot maintain 4,000+/- linear feet of trails associated with this project, despite this shortfall, certain trails are still needed in the City and this issue should not be an"all or nothing"debate; instead funding should be targeted to address actual needs and deficiencies with linkages to the City's current trail systems that could achieve similar results as well as possibly being less expensive to install and maintain; b) There is little utility in a trail along 60th. City Trail systems to the south are in place and ready to be linked. A shorter trail constructed in a north- south fashion can link the area trails and • DRAFT Document—work in progress for October 2, 2009 meeting Page 2 of 4 III serve the looping desired to be achieved. (city—provide map with proposed trial connects) c) Acknowledge that these trails serve a local function and thus must be part of the local trail systems in planning, location and design. • Mn/DOT— a) Maintenance of these bike and pedestrian trails will be a local requirement within each city. b) Stillwater has indicated that they could consider maintaining the loop trail outside their city limits if needed. c) The trail along 60th is optional,if the city does not want the ownership and maintenance responsibility for the trail it can be deleted from the project. Issue M5: Per Mn/DOT policy for traffic signals with local streets;power, lighting and minor maintenance responsibilities are assigned to the city or county depending on roadway jurisdiction. • City— a) City has concerns as to long-term contractual obligations being honored; b) What is the definition of"minor"maintenance? c) Issues on future modifications to traffic signal systems need to . require city input to avoid loss of infrastructure investments (i.e. advance flashers, opticom systems etc.) • Mn/DOT—Signals are provided to facilitate local access onto the trunk highway. Per Mn/DOT policy Mn/DOT will have major maintenance responsibilities and the local government (city or county)will have minor maintenance responsibilities,which includes power and relamping costs. 3. Future Utility concern Issue: City concerned that utilities in Truck Highway R/W by permit if impacted in future will again be a financial burden to the city. • City—In future city cannot be in same position. Must identify mechanism for city utilities remaining in Mn/DOT R/W to be subject to project cost replacement by Mn/DOT or FHWA for future rebuild and/or relocation. • Mn/DOT—Under Minnesota law and rules it is necessary to obtain a utility permit in order to place utilities on trunk highway right of way. If changes occur in future the city would be required to cover all costs(8810.3300, subp 3). 4. Layout Issue: Project's"MNDOT Staff Approved Layout, dated 7-18-05"is a layout that Mn/DOT plans to design and construct for the project. 40, • City— DRAFT Document—work in progress for October 2, 2009 meeting Page 3 of 4 a) Provide a full copy of this approval document as well as its • attached layout from 1995. b) Provide Mn/DOT narrative on ALL the differences between 1995 and 2005 layouts. c) Why would Mn/DOT produce construction plans on a layout that has not received City approval? • Mn/DOT— a) Currently developing construction plans based on 2005 staff approved layout. b) What elements of the 7-18-05 layout does the city object to? 5. Municipal consent Issue: following legal proceedings on consent issue Washington County District Court ruled that the municipal consent statute that was used when the City approved the project in 1995 will be followed and not the current statute. o City Resolution 95-08-39 approved August 14, 1995 o MOU signed by city(8-15-95)and Mn/DOT (9-7-95) covered 25 therefore issues, some issues no longer relevant. o City and Mn/DOT need to agree as to what needs to be approved and mechanism of approval. • City—the level of differences will/may determine the process to follow under the old law. Provide Copy of layout that was "approved"in 1995. • Mn/DOT—Under old statute next step after approval of"layout plan"is to • develop and submit"construction plans and specifications"in accordance with the approved layout plan. Misc issues 1. City Design of utilities—(City would design,but would require reimbursement). 2. HPP city funds for cut-n-cover study,wording has been changed to allow wider study; use these funds or pursue additional approach studies could be discussed in more detail. 3. Perception of Fairness—the City notes that other pubic and private jurisdictions are receiving significant infrastructure improvements, (Xcel mooring cells& Stillwater Park) yet the City is requested to fund basic and needed elements to this Project without similar local benefits. 4. Full assessment(site by site) of local businesses impacted by the Project, particularly those on frontage roads. Could be considerable parking loss and further fiscal impacts on the City. (city—please define what you would consider a"Full assessment") 5. River Bridge Ice Control Equipment Building should be compliant with City Design Standards, (city—please define requirements) 6. Now is the time to acquire the property in the NW quadrant of TH 36 and • Osgood so that the intersection improvements can be secured before new businesses locate and reinvest in the site. DRAFT Document—work in progress for October 2,2009 meeting Page 4 of 4 ' a=2 2 f fa t c ez g° m z z O e S ' —° 4' '' z a 9 1I Z £ z R.N a s az i N EllEEE$?R S ri E N 3 N N N M o g a E1: . .w w e x a $ °os�5.t. 8 4 z 'pA' Ri1 1�29m fill Cjii o a n q v v 3 O S _ G°g e l l �'.' a 3 z a 1 4 Fag!° m m N FQpa G a 3S N^: 8c�i`o ° ° m N. 6 Ni;i1 0 m E A (o g+� eiL A a ° A ., 8 m .'. 9 u 1 cp N 2i ,m ' ,9∎ Wii N Z 0 - ; amn °. 5. nm m o o n N A m N 2 H i O D 1 11111111111 _00100000101010010000000000 : i 111111111111 _iIIIiiiiiI !Iiiii ! 1 I 111111111111 _ 111111111111111N 519b 1/VI N 19' a 3 H ls.i%7 HIII!IIII �.:^r.,�lr .,I il[ 1 1 1 1 I l I H. ,..'_ _' I I i. _ O 1I 1 �I 1l 1 �I:-1 I-I 1 I '.11[ 1 1 1 I II 1 1 1 1 1 - N i_i r 1 1 II I I, I 1'E 1 1' I A 14,',.1 111 � �I , 1 1 I , 1 1 93 rt �� I[E III 1 1 , 1 tdf,,. I, �, I vy I I It', ,=. O .,.1L_, J �I , t -.., I �,I_, , ,ICI_ 1 1 a , N I I I 1 1 !I 1�� ..1 I ,1 1 , 1� 1 11 , 1 11 1 , , i= I 1 1 1 , I ,gu in II ilk. ,11 I , Il JI 11 ! . 1 1 I 1 r.`.1. 1 1 1 11 '11 I Ij I I I,,..I =I e,,1 C 11 I ��II ` _11 I �1 _ 11. - 0 ilillililili ��lr-S, '----,' � � �:J _J�-_ 3 1111111111111111111111111111 0�� !MIMI!' '1 1 0 1111 —11111111111111111111111111 1 rn ;l o V ° I 111111111111 _IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i E I iiiiiiuiaiuioiuhiiiiiii0 111111111111 IhhIhhhIHuIIHhIHHhIIIII i §i. ?il IMIHI _ IIIIIIIIIII — $a 11111111111 111111111111 _IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I W ii V Of(n AfJN�z --- Z S 2 - N O u m' m a0 g g 11. >cocncn**g O. pi(0 CDg;CD . . O Q OOZZZ11.•• N E u F/}ri 3 O 0. N y % li ZZ<<<Z__ „ O o. � 6515111. 0 7 rr0i'rrmmmZZ m d fi =, G, 0g ��y n .c.x3x-ITTZN > > a .n8 8 X 1 CO 3 O + 000mc mm � "1 ��„ > j o co w 22m�K_.1.-1 � 0 O n& r51 O[m co m 5 pOOZ Z Cn22 ° p O z M u —1 C) CD Nmm0wSE� ° : ° D 4.N ...4 3 A .0 mm N22zdz y e r E: P N -i 0 z N N m y D Z � Z n7 4 3 Z 0 CD OAA-4-COZ'wm n O n 3 �- ^' mmD 52 7I ,9 m ZOO �D$p 3 n 'Ci. mmw0m . Co -D•rm - A 0 c m n i-i--lis°86wa mom c z m MM m o 0 0 0 to 2 °Op yrrr m N ?C Cnway.4 Oy (A A--4--1�wZ O _ +O O O O W C N 0 m m z z m °0003w802 W 11111 111 mmDDO+Z — liii — c-I C 00 5 N$=o N 0.+. w D NOOO°Oom 0, . „n,,A Am�n?D 5 N oOF 0, !i-ip D .Z� o N p S Ill' Nm rr r T {O. D N II TI It 1h D I � I I -I -1- I' I N C o c 4 N O0. .t -1 7I ) I I g = ! .1 h 1 ,I r Z y II 0 ■ o �" r u Sig■O I o m< Z il. _ f• N r 0 r°n <°, ' _) N 0 ff q m Cmi O +�L VIII,. 1 .� - 1 ,I d 0 0 -i s,Pf.r° n '' I N z zp r M ! i 1 '<r.DD MR; Q a it 1 I' lu, I.��l_L�1 a-I 11 3 I z gn 5 I 4 2T q Z A o O O 0 T W a _MX 12 r 3 g3 -0 m0 — a zm v m fi w a co o m p 0 rr '° 8 e 8 s . N _IHH N ""1m b 111 y n A N 110111111;‘i'7,1 Eli 5_ 8 p H $ JIIN1' O 8 11111 1111 '1 U O 3 = M I z o o °o _ R. 5•Lt Er M- A Gl A m i' u t)S N a ;i m 10 J o A °o g$o o c °0 8 0 0 g N u $ S S o 0 o S 8 o S S o 8 i o°>' x A r r HUhUV i~ ~ 3OTw i 1 i;00«<rn e e z s A- p8ig lzmri 2F ml„mZZ N Wm$ eas c 18 1 1 q I mrtyg3AAi32 sld','w ^i gig 4 g.? §51=§1 Alf3Ogm - : = mo 12 a sPIgim ZZ rt» W y ode m', o- iF , OOZZNS �vmmp.m urr I5 lm. 3.�0 z OI $fO m 'gyp', VAS �" 000m�Owm w £I " o i 1 4 zvmmY? R0?1� w s ECmcaa,mg0 A m w o w 1 g 8 2mm+N m AD miw- 2 11 0 z2 mmo6b`gyp 9 I i 8,00 ' wrw c y N�-�� WWbr } I,T,o t 1 '1'� } it mma AIA d + r D 5' �pg"j, UJ[UITL ul j O 4 A f dq fA AL,OZ 'p,' II . a `1[It g 't `I t=i -a,0> ".;-ao M 's mm w, .. v*mrw4, S+ o8n i'.+1 71 - , r� e °mm « oc� `do'vO II io m y J 1 1 .a a s.1 10-qO .w'w a q a A,;,2.<O z R o°mpz- N _ '''- m �, mD-< R m « « Imo�[?± m m z m o I min im 'ts N cV O o I I {� g q a�2O w a a m g i I' 1 1 z§ r « 1 O r - ... AO N m - wo ti-1411-! �' - a 1 ' E2- is i 8 § X1'1 C � _ o ii e J m= 0 m 22 i V« I zm C1 wa pNp yNO aWq + �Cyyi q+NY p1 Eby zm N A T I- 111 m� w V A w N W zzi J ( � A { wl N; _ m 1 r«sio n31 N a SNP; no « 1 II I I N pp, yy w �. N + A fl�II m O RIIIIIII'! I .E. 2 i & ii ii 1 w I III 2, S N 4 it N l V .11I: -III - T. NF.4 - g# & :N�N V m . e W JNJO I \.,n � §, w a1 1 wD R 1� i;V m b N N O Ny�W_g 5 $la woo - -.I 11 - Usa a - ' Q m 9 b 1 M I k Wmli I y b 3 -^m 6 V i m 4 Io3 n`zUHH iw y ii gl w ag a J roi z, R a a O G al c F FrU > *ai ? = ifc CU iFFFFF g * i?gg� oo Rffi H Bi !!a, , T =i ecI5; w. " U1U. Vfl o°% n d m z z v m O NN niy Bt;N gm"j9 �cARA � m E. DPI C A S ^gym^ N F N h EV1 y p O I'�" N '�@.-0101- 1-10 �'I = III i 1 i 11Ivs:o Iuu111111111111111111111111 a a R R 0. 1 a 8 d a a Ill Ii liiiIIIIIII' �I I � 1111111 , x4,4 l # I = = R " g rirr,rirciri i'm AD g ki ilT g 1 1 y 114111.11iill N am q W N � k W 11111111 +N .q J W E aaP OD LI WW il q OOO III i ipN .G 6 W U i W O W W W S A EO W W N N t -N N o Qp. y p N QO S �III '1 it ii i i O A I J 3 s N9 9 T 4S$ W N g m m W y 9 +m>A> a s� JC �g �$$ It $ 3 m - + m Ny� V N y V .1 Q.. . .. b 1D O� NON ID Oo A O V A W N ��. 05 N lig Q 1 ti b A NN , W N V m 4 O 1111 ilk° N mJ 3 V 1 i it i ! INS g..2 1 $sJN+e C„ . Y N FAO Eli C L' Eaf /11 I'��I S ro _I O 3 j° 0 IIe;qa tD G1 N N m N 4 V 1 +N + Ol O 11 � � m 9 I I IIIIi - 8 g N A 8 z.-.4.i. A O gmN;O Igy / 1 4 I+ N -11111111111 �O ; E197 s W O N �® N 111 ppA N gu u li+J+N AW V I a4 N il ;d p p N N N W I lA1 g g 1E4 V I lit i'N rsi ; il+,s„ ii ;II!N 1 Ij ;il Imn S N� I II -I 1 111 EOJ g J 115/if A 4 g g N 11111111111 I�� ; Ei 2 ' �. W AO W S N ,Es 1 ANO gW+ g +V W gAO±m IgN a Ef Et 1 u A sNN A roN> gig O Q Nwi NN +N I ; A 1 W 1 1 m N s N yy .-, 1 ..., W V la g C\ t H iht . 0... xi), Minnesota Department of Transportation "-"/ Memo Metropolitan District Office Tel: 651-582-1360 Waters Edge 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, Minnesota 55113 October 6, 2006 - To: Richard Stehr,Division Director of Engineering Services Robert Winter,Division Director of District Operations From: ani Sahebjam,Metro District Engineer Subject: Request For Exception To Policy And Procedures For the St. Croix River Crossing Project,SP 8214-114,Cities of Oak Park Heights,Stillwater, and Bayport and Washington County I am requesting exceptions to the current Mn/DOT-Policy and Procedures Cost Policy for the St. Croix River Crossing Project. Due to the uniqueness of this project there are cost areas that will ( • require exceptions to the cost policy. This request covers project elements and local costs that affect three cities(Oak Park Heights, Stillwater, and Bayport) and Washington County. The City of Oak Park Heights is not currently a State Aid City but expects to reach the population threshold within 3-5 years, Stillwater is a State Aid City and Bayport is not. High Priority Program dollars are identified in the current SAFETEA-LU Act to offset project costs. MN217 (TEA#4358)calls for"Design,construct, and acquire right-of-way for the St. Croix River Crossing in Stillwater"(authorized amount$9,000,000).MN191 (TEA#3186)lists"TH36-Stillwater Bridge,ROW acquisition and Utility Relocation"(authorized amount$4,000,000).There are additional dollars($13,100,000)identified for Wisconsin in the Act for the project. A$400,000 appropriation for further study by Oak Park Heights of a"cut-n-cover"concept for TH 36 is also included in the Act(MN126,TEA#813). The St. Croix project is located in a unique area that is rich in environmental and historic resources. The river is federally designated as a National Wild and Scenic River for its remarkable scenic, recreational and geologic values. The river valley has a number of rare and protected species such as the Bald Eagle, Osprey, Peregrine Falcon and Higgins Eye mussel, as well as significant wetland and other water resources. The project area also has a number of historic resources,most located in the downtown Stillwater area,but others located in Oak Park Heights and Wisconsin. There are also several protected Section 4(f)resources in the project area. Finding a transportation solution that avoided,minimized or if neededimitigated for project impacts ( • on the many protected resources in the project area was only possible through a facilitated stakeholder process. Over the last three years Mn/DOT,WisDOT and FHWA have worked through a Stakeholder process to find a safe and efficient river crossing over the St. Croix River. The Page 1 of 5 Stakeholder group consisted of 28 people that represented local governments, state and federal • agencies, non-profit advocacy groups for the river, environment and historic resources, and other interests. The Stakeholder group held its final meeting July 2006; the majority of the group endorsed the "Preferred Alternative" package. The package provides for the design of the project and a mitigation package necessary to offset project impacts on protected resources. Pro ect Miti ation Packa a(Exception Request The Stakeholder group developed a mitigation package to offset the projects impacts on the riverway,natural and historic resources,and visual impacts. The mitigation s$1s are described in SFEIS Table 15-2(attached). The estimated cost of the majority of the Stakeholders,which includes agencies the project, have found the mitigation package to be acceptable. of the mitigation items establishes an endowm ent fund for the Lift Bridge that will re q uir e Minnesota legislation to enact. n Aesthetics(Exception Requestl The mitigation package includes a"Visual Enhancement"item that falls outside the cost policy. An"extradosed"bridge type was identified by the stakeholders for the Preferred Alternative and represents a substantial additional investment pthe compared of a new river bridge.ossing with the high bridge type was identified because it best quality values(e.g.,natural;cultural;recreational;visual)that define the riverway. • As described in the cost policy,this project is a"Level A"due to the project areas unique and sensitive features and a"Category 1"because n costs to be major ed for aesthetic project.The aesthetic budget for for u the approach construction river bridge(including the MN approach bridge)is limited by the policy to 15%of the bridge construction cost and but not to exceed evel A�Category 1)over TH 36 and second onedoarries an Minnesota,one carries Beach Road(Level 2 along the east side of TH 95 just north of TH 36. access road over R/R tracks(Level C—Category ) g The Beach Road bridge is very visible and is a gateway structure to the river way. The access road bridge is in an industrial area and will not be very visible. As p art of the Stakeholder process it was identified that due to the tic bun ss of this area fRINM of the level of aesthetics was required for the project. A negotiated project construction costs was determined for projects Minnesota or Wisconsin roadway oadway app oaches or be used for aesthetic items anywhere on the inland bridges. The aesthetic budget for extra to be used fo�aest aesthetic the on the bridge.the base bridge and allows for up to$3,000,000 The total aesthetic budget for the project is�lca currently atapproach bridge and$5 1 for the provides for up to$3 million extra for the river bridge approaches and inland bridges in Minnesota and Wisconsin. A cost exception is 'ed requested to allow up to 4.5,:i'listikidics on the approaches and an estifs. • Page 2of5 •, Local Trails—(Concurrence request) Two trail systems are proposed with the project. The first is a loop trail system that utilizes the new river bridge,the historic lift bridge,and connecting trails on both sides of the river. The loop trail is one of the items in the mitigation package. A second trail system provides local trail connections along TH 36 and TH 95 that will provide connections between local/regional trails and the loop trail. It is proposed to allow a portion of the aesthetic budget to cover the cost of construction of these trails. This expenditure is allowed in the policy(section 1.D.f.i,page 43); concurrence to expend a portion of the aesthetic budget on local/regional trail construction is requested. Stormwater Ponds(Exception Request) Nine stormwater ponds and two infiltration basins along the Minnesota approach are proposed with the St. Croix project to address project, a e s in the project area Water quality is a major concern with the agencies that make up the St. Croix Basin Water Resources Planning Team; including the MnDNR,WisDNR,MPCA,and NPS. The Basin Team has adopted a 20%phosphorus loading reduction goal within the St.Croix River drainage basin. This goal for the St. Croix River is above that required under current NPDES permit requirements. The ponds have been sized to accommodate stormwater runoff from the project and the abutting local drainage areas that also drain to these ponds. Washington County and the City's of Oak Park Heights, Stillwater,and Bayport have areas draining to the ponds and therefore identified local cost shares in the ponds. The proposed ponding areas needed to meet NPDES requirements have been increased to try and meet the Basin Team's phosphorous loading reduction goal. With the ponding that is provie - '°, � � ,�n �r� • _��; n is achieved for the project. There are some additional ponding possibilities that will be further investigated during the detail design phase to try and attain the 20%goal. WisDOT is funding the full cost of the ponds on the east side of the river. The use o '" �;a' � t ate: e - , of the identified local costs for the ponds. The below table identifies the total local cost participation in the stormwater ponds. Table 1—Local Costs for Stormwater Ponds Est.Local Pond Cost HPP 80% 20%Local Match Oak Park Heights $328,552 $262,842 $65,710 Stillwater $50,630 $40,504 $10,126 Bayport $70,954 $56,763 $14,191 Washington County $49,048 $39,238 $9,810 Total $499,184 $399,347 $99,837 • ondin nme','°' at elude h local drainage areas;are needed to'-attain the 1 + + s usagoals4for t .° ,."_. ° Lust exception requestedio DO rovide4the ltaretof the city's°and county. Professional Technical Services(information only-no cost exception) The City of Oak Park Heights has city utilities(sanitary sewer and watermain)that are in the Mn/DOT R/W by"permit"that are impacted by the project and will need to be relocated. The city Page 3 of 5 also has utilities that will be impacted by the project that are in new R/W and will be considered "first move." The city has also requested utility work that is defined as a"betterment." III The estimated construction costs for city utility work in Oak Park Heights is shown in Table 2.The city will design the new local utilities for inclusion in the TH36 roadway plan. The city does not have engineering staff and will consult out these design services. The estimated cost for design is of estimated at 6.5%of the utility construction cost. onsultantsts. Table 2.—Utility Design Costs Type of Move Est. Design o Hpp /o HPP $'s Mn/DOT Oak Park Heights Const. Cost 6.50% Match $ Match $ Permitted 1,334,500 86,743 80% 69,394 0% 0 20% 17,349 First Move 534,920 34,770 80% 27,816 20% 6,954 0% 0 Betterment 236,575 15,377 0% 0 0% 0 100% 15,377 Total 2,105,995 136,890 _ 97,210 6,954 32,726 The City of Stillwater has a relatively minor local utility impact cost of$30,000. Mn/DOT designers will work with Stillwater to address these local utility design issues. accordance with State Statute 161.46 and federal rules Oak Park Heights will be required to •rovide the 20%HPP match for permitted utilities and 100%of the costs for betterments. Mn/DOT „J'_l provide the 20%match on the first move. IIICity Engineering Utility Coordination(information only-no cost exception) The City of Oak Park Heights requested to have their own inspection staff observe the construction and inspection work on installation of their city utilities under Mn/DOT contract. The city will consultant out this service because they do not have staff to meet this need. %.nble'IIPP`dollirrs vorablee'reflt,"thiesieseisikergoise*20%,dociaLniatohkrequiroment. The estimated cost for construction engineering(CE)is estimated at 5%of the utility construction cost and summarized in Table 3. Table 3—Construction Engineering for Local Utilities Mn/DOT Oak Park Heights Type Est. CE HPP % HPP$'s Co Match $ Match $ T e of Move Const.cost 5% Permitted 1,334,500 66,725 80% 53,380 0% 0 20% , First Move 534,920 26,746 80% 21,397 20% 5,349 0% 0 236,575 11,829 0% 0 0% 0 100% 1 9 Betterment 5,349 Total 2,105,995 105,300 _ 74,777 Way with State Statute 161.46 and federal rules Oak Park Heights will be required to [accordance ovide the 20%HPP match for permitted utilities and 100%of the costs for betterments.Mn/DOT 11 provide the 20%match on the first move utilities. Construction Costs for City Utilities(information only-no cost exception) I •The construction costs to relocate the City of Oak Park Heights utilities impacted by the project,in Mn/DOT R/W by permit as required in State Statute 161.46 are a required 100%local cost. Page 4 of 5 Mn/DOT plans to use available HPP funds to cover 80%of these city utility costs,the remaining 20%is a local cost. City utilities that are impacted and considered a"first move"will utilize available HPP funds and Mn/DOT will provide the 20%local match. City requested utility work that is a"betterment"would be 100%city cost for design,construction, and construction engineering. Table 4—Construction Costs for Local Utilities Est. Mn/DOT Oak Park Heights Const. HPP% HPP $'s Cost Match $ Match $ Permitted 1,334,500 80% 1,067,600 0% 0 20% 0 First Move 534,920 80% 427,936 20% 106,984 0% 0 Betterment 236,575 0% 0 0% 0 100% , Total 2,105,995 1,495,536 106,984 In accordance with State Statute 161.46 and federal rules Oak Park Heights will be required to provide the 20%HPP match for permitted utilities and 100%of the costs for betterments. Mn/DOT will provide the 20%match on the first move. Traffic signals(information only-no cost exception) New traffic signals are identified at s,. �� - ections with the project. The local cost contribution is identified in the attached cost table.Mn/DOT plans to use available HPP funds to cover 80%of these signal costs,the remaining 20%is a local cost. If you have any questions concerning this request please call me at 651-582-1360. I concur with this request I concur with this request J �� , e� �_ ':chard Stehr 'obert Winter Division Director of Engineering Service Division Director of District Operations Attachments • Project Aerial Photo(dated 4/29/06), • Project Utilities Preliminary Cost Impacts(dated 7/31/06), • Proposed Traffic Signal Construction Costs/Maintenance Responsibilities(dated 5/2/06), and • Project Mitigation Package, SFEIS Table 15-2. Cc: Maryanne Kelly-Sonnek • Nick Thompson Todd Clarkowski Adam Josephson Page 5 of 5 o cn fi ti. II S °a N @*P g° (pp Fi : lV' N( lG lCl x 0 R° Aa) 001 Oa,ro Pd `r1 rnCa a'n Zo t• �7v ON as si t0 N C v , v� v��'+ rn o 5' CdC) by8 9 P° P.. Et n 8 z0 b c �� a v " ,ro a v -fDe o m -4 II a m p '' p m ° f> ¢co a' tri al ii R. z a z a >~ A a.. - A 11 .. ., ., .. .. — .. .. - . F a ,_ • y I a, 00 Z by ooOlrn ooaFt aa >11 / : C1 C .C. O\J N T Fl N 0n�l N .- = J_ P cY a to 0Q to to L oo N N 9 — O W 000 W W W WW/O W /� K V, R 4"JO r' r 11 �, a alp gy ) o cz �O �# ��' 0Vc s,_= = IN A � ono P7'(2. o � o PI bT" o E o Fy p Q p Q p c9 p p 4. op p Q .00 = 11 . p2'. .9 w O) 2 0 'n (')0' O O O b ro ti ro '0 ^ y w ' x C C • dro N N N N - N O J, c ti.1 O O O ,O 00 O N N N ✓: 'l C o e o o e - o CD CD N N .� n " I l 1 p r Vi N lit N �,,, r. 7^ ^ co) �"t ro O O O O N O — 0 . o 0 0 0 \ v0 ' :I„ C N x N .+ Ei Q fn Q ish. =. CA H Cl) H H N. H H Cl) y C' O Cl) V) Cl) V) V) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) 'J J. H H H H -3 H H H H )c'E. A'+ K. O 03. ola o a a. a ° s p d p p _ fy C1 o o 0 0 0 i -: :.... 0 c� H �r O N G D^. e i Cy p• a a x p a . _O O y O O ro b < v) - ro 5 . w 9 x x 9 x o 0 0 _ i r�E City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 August 18, 2011 Adam Josephson,P.E. Mn/DOT East Area Manager Waters Edge Bldg 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville,MN 55113 RE: City Engineering Estimate—STH 36 Utility Relocations. Dear Mr. Josephson, For your comments,I have provided you an estimate(attached)for City utili ty relocations related to the STH 36./St. Croix River Crossing Project. The intent of this study is to better quantify from the City's perspective possible costs associated with relocation of City utilities beyond those previously supplied by MNDOT•in various spreadsheets.I am aware that Bonestroo staff were in contact with Mr.Todd Clarkowski for certain information necessary to • complete this estimate. The intention of this study was not to provide absolute costs,but rather to identify generalities. If MNDOT would please review these data and offer comments back to my attention within 10 days it would be appreciated.Those comments should meaningfully discuss situations where the City's engineering estimate maybe substantially inaccurate. Again,we are all dealing with estimates at this time however we can make educated guesses based on Bonestoo's years of experience in bidding and managing projects. Finally,while the document does set forth clear and reasonable assumptions,the values supplied DO NOT include engineering costs,land acquisition costs,legal costs, administrative costs as these would be additional costs.Also the study does NOT include any"betterments"the City may desire. We look forward to your comments and feedback. Eric •hnson Ci Administrator Cc: Weekly Notes • Mark Vierling, City Attorney Chris Long,Bonestroo { 2335 Highway 36 W St.Paul,MN 55113 Tel 651-636-4600 Fax 651-636-1311 www.bonestroo.com • onestroo August 17, 2011 n. Mr. Eric Johnso City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N. P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Re: TH-36 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Relocation (Outside MnDOT R.O.W.) — Mapping and Cost Estimate - Bonestroo File No: 000055-11175-0 Dear Eric: As directed, we have provided preliminary cost estimates and drawings for the sanitary sewer and water main relocation associated with MnDOT's preferred alternative for the St. Croix River Crossing improvements. The purpose of the study was to determine the cost impacts to the City as well as visually showing the land acquisition and easement needs required with the relocation of the utilities. The study included the removal and relocation of all the existing sanitary sewer and water main • located within the MnDOT right of way of the proposed TH-36 improvements corridor.The proposed sanitary sewer and water main were relocated outside of the MnDOT right of way within a proposed City easement(see attached figure drawings). Cost Estimate(Concept Stage) The table below identifies the costs for removing and relocating the sanitary sewer and water main. A cost breakdown is shown displaying the major construction items. The costs shown only include construction costs and do not include engineering, legal, or land acquisition costs. Cost Breakdown Utility Construction Relocation Item Cost Removals Tunneling Open-Cut Directional Pipe(70%) Pipe(30 0/o) Drill Pipe Other Sanitary Sewer $ 9,302,300 $302,400 $6,292,600 $ 1,047,300 4. . $1,660,000 Water Main $ 2,727,500 $244,000 �� _° ,� $1,944,000 $ 539,500 Total $12,029,800 $546,400 $6,292,600 $ 1,047,300 $1,944,000 $2,199,500 *For detailed estimate,see the attached Concept Stage Cost Estimate. ■ 2 Oak Park Heights Page 2 TH-36 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Relocation III Design Assumptions Several assumptions were used in order to complete a preliminary concept design for the relocation of utilities. Shown below were the key assumptions considered: • No betterments were included in this study; only the required e epl cety operations the exws isting sanitary sewer and water main necessary to maintain included. • Remove all utilities within MnDOT right of way. Instead of leaving utilities in place or abandoning utilities,the City will not be susceptible to future maintenance or responsibility of the utilities as they will be removed. • Install proposed utilities outside of MnDOT right of way in City easement(excluding of required crossings). If the utilities were to remain in MnDOT right of way, relocation costs would be reduced by approximately 15%, reducing total relocation costs to approximately $10,225,000. Relocating utilities within the MnDOT right of way would reduce the following: — Tunneling of sanitary sewer pipe (assuming only 30%tunneling rather the 70% tunneling shown in the table above) — Restoration of private property • Sanitary sewer—approximately 70% of the pipe replacement was considered to be • installed by tunneling.This method of construction allows for installation of pipe at flat grades with only spot location excavation pits.This method minimizes disruption along the frontage roads to businesses as well as minimizing restoration costs (parking lots, driveways, landscaping, etc.). • Water Main -all pipe replacement was considered to be directionally drilled. Similar to tunneling the sanitary sewer,disruption to businesses and residents will be minimized along with lower restoration costs. • Pipe Jacking at Crossings- utility crossings under TH-36, county highways, or railroads require a casing pipe. • Storm sewer costs were not included as part of this study (although the existing storm sewer is shown on the figure drawings). • Proposed TH-36 Improvement project limits were assumed to be at the existing MnDOT right of way. Figure Drawing Details The figure drawings were organized as shown�o proposed utilities aee from hown outside MnDOT right of proposed TH-36 improvements corridor p p way and within a proposed 30' permanent utility easement as needed. Below are some key IIIdetails associated with the relocation: Oak Park Heights TH-36 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Re location Page 3 8/17/11 Sanitary Sewer: • 1. TH-36 Crossings (3) -during relocation, new pipe and structures are needed to adjust to new grades. These crossings will be installed in a casing pipe. 2. New pipe east of Moelter Fly-Ash site -this pipe was redirected to avoid MnDOT frontage road and right of way. The proposed pipe will flow into the MCES interceptor at approximately 59th St. N. and St. Croix Trail N. 3. Relaying of pipe at Peabody Ave. N. to Beaudet Addition area -the crossing at Upper 61st St. N. will be removed as part of the TH-36 Improvements and the sewer needs to be redirected to the north. The existing lift station located at the north end of lookout trail north will be removed and the proposed pipe will flow via gravity pipe across TH-36 to the Sunnyside area. Water Main: 1. TH-36 Crossings(2) -The proposed crossing at Olene Ave. N. replaces the existing crossing at Osgood Ave. N. This crossing will feed the High Pressure Zone on the north side of TH-36. The proposed crossing at the Beaudet Addition area to the Sunnyside area replaces the existing crossing at Upper 61st St. N. These crossings will be installed in a casing pipe. 2. Loop pipe from Moelter Fly-Ash site to Sunnyside area -this loop is required after removal of the existing water main within the former Elfelt's Addition to Oak 11111 Park. The crossings at St. Croix Trail N. and the railroad will be installed in casing pipe. 3. Pressure Reducing Stations (2) -these stations are required for connecting the high and low pressure zones of the water main system. This study was completed as a concept stage using two-dimensional plans and current base mapping record plan data. The preferred alternative for the TH-36 Improvements was obtained from MnDOT and is shown shaded on the figure drawings. Additional work along with including the utility betterments will need to be determined with the design of the proposed TH-36 Improvements. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-4808. Sincerely, BONESTROO, INC. Christopher W. Long, P.E. Cc: Andy Kegley—Public Works Director, Betty Caruso - Finance Director, Mark Vierling— • City Attorney; Bonestroo: Mark Hanson, Dave Hanson, Mike Nill, Mike Warner. • CONCEPT STAGE COST ESTIMATE ST.CROIX RIVER CROSSING PROJECT TH-36 SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN RELOCATION(OUTSIDE MNDOT ROW) Bonestroo PROJECT NO. OAK PARK HEIGHTS,MN 8/10/2011 No. Item Units QtY EE Unit Price EE Total Price PART 1-SANITARY SEWER LS 1 $550,000 $550,000 LF 1 MOBILIZATION(5%) LF $196,000 19600 $10 2 REMOVE SANITARY SEWER PIPE EA $8,400 1050 $8 3 REMOVE FORCEMAIN PIPE EA $98,000 98 $1,000 4 REMOVE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE $100,000 50 $2,000 5 RECONNECT SANITARY SEWER SERVICE LF $180,000 60 $3,000 4110 EA 6 4'DIAMETER SANITARY MANHOLES $1,288,000 2300 $560 7 TUNNEL 8" SANITARY SEWER LF $570 $1,710,000 LF 3000 8 TUNNEL 10"SANITARY SEWER LF $324,300 1410 $230 9 OPEN-CUT 10"SANITARY SEWER LF $214,600 370 $580 10 TUNNEL 12"SANITARY SEWER LF $2,360,000 4000 $590 11 TUNNEL 18"SANITARY SEWER LF $408,000 1700 $240 12 OPEN-CUT 18" SANITARY SEWER LF $720,000 1200 $600 13 TUNNEL 24"SANITARY SEWER LF $127,500 510 $250 14 OPEN-CUT 24"SANITARY SEWER $187,500 625 $300 15 CASING PIPE,JACKED $830,000 • W 1 $830,000 RESTORATION,TRAFFIC% CONTROL,EROSION LS 16 $9,302,300 CONTROL,MISC.(10 ) TOTAL PART 1-SANITARY SEER BID FORM 000——° ©2008 Bonestroo No. Item Units Qty EE Unit Price • EE Total Price PART 2-WATER MAIN 17 REMOVE WATER MAIN LF 22800 $10 $228,000 18 REMOVE HYDRANT EA 32 $500 $16,000 19 8"WATER MAIN DIRECTIONAL DRILLED LF 14800 $70 $1,036,000 20 12"WATER MAIN DIRECTIONAL DRILLED LF 2350 $80 $188,000 21 CASING PIPE,JACKED LF 2400 $300 $720,000 22 INSTALL HYDRANT EA 35 $3,000 $105,000 23 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EA 23 $1,500 $34,500 24 VALVES EA 70 $2,000 $140,000 25 RECONNECT WATER SERVICE EA 50 $2,000 4l) $100,000 26 PRESSURE REDUCING STATION EA 2 $20,000 $40,000 27 RESTORATION,TRAFFIC CONTROL,EROSION LS CONTROL,FITTINGS,MISC. (5%) 1 $120,000 $120,000 TOTAL PART 2-WATER MAIN $2,727,500 SUMMARY TOTAL PART 1-SANITARY SEWER $9,302,300.00 TOTAL PART 2-WATER MAIN $2,727,500.00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $12,029,800.00 • 000 -o ©2008 Bonestroo 00410-2 BID FORM • CONCEPT STAGE COST ESTIMATE ST.CROIX RIVER CROSSING PROJECT TH-36 SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN RELOCATION(OUTSIDE MNDOT ROW) Bonestroo PROJECT NO.55-11175-0 OAK PARK HEIGHTS,MN 8/10/2011 No. Item Units Qty EE Unit Price EE Total Price PART 1-SANITARY SEWER $550,000 1 $550,000 LS 1 MOBILIZATION(5%) $196,000 19600 $10 2 REMOVE SANITARY SEWER PIPE LF $8,400 1050 $8 3 REMOVE FORCEMAIN PIPE LF $98,000 EA 4 REMOVE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 98 $1,000 $100,000 50 $2,000 5 RECONNECT SANITARY SEWER SERVICE EA $180,000 60 $3,000 • 6 4'DIAMETER SANITARY MANHOLES EA $560 $1,288,000 LF 2300 7 TUNNEL 8"SANITARY SEWER $1,710,000 3000 $570 8 TUNNEL 10" SANITARY SEWER LF $ $324,300 1410 $230 9 OPEN-CUT 10"SANITARY SEWER LF $214,600 370 $580 10 TUNNEL 12" SANITARY SEWER LF $2,360,000 LF 4000 $590 11 TUNNEL 18"SANITARY SEWER $408,000 1700 $240 12 OPEN-CUT 18"SANITARY SEWER LF $720,000 1200 $600 13 TUNNEL 24"SANITARY SEWER LF $127,500 510 $250 14 OPEN-CUT 24"SANITARY SEWER LF $187,500 625 $300 15 CASING PIPE,JACKED LF 16 $830,000 1 $830,000 ,TRAFFIC CONTROL,EROSION LS CONTROLRESTORATION,MISC (10%) $9,302,300 TOTAL PART 1-SANITARY SEWER • BID FORM 00410-1 2008 Bonestroo I No. Item Units Qty EE Unit Price EE Total Price f • PART 2-WATER MAIN 17 REMOVE WATER MAIN LF 22800 $10 $228,000 18 REMOVE HYDRANT EA 32 $500 $16,000 19 8"WATER MAIN DIRECTIONAL DRILLED LF 14800 $70 $1,036,000 20 12"WATER MAIN DIRECTIONAL DRILLED LF 2350 $80 $188,000 21 CASING PIPE,JACKED LF 2400 $300 $720,000 22 INSTALL HYDRANT EA 35 $3,000 $105,000 23 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EA 23 $1,500 $34,500 24 VALVES EA 70 $2,000 $140,000 25 RECONNECT WATER SERVICE EA 50 $2,000 $100,000 • 26 PRESSURE REDUCING STATION EA 2 $20,000 $40,000 27 RESTORATION,TRAFFIC CONTROL, EROSION LS 1 CONTROL,FITTINGS, MISC. (5%) $120,000 $120,000 TOTAL PART 2-WATER MAIN $2,727,500 SUMMARY TOTAL PART 1-SANITARY SEWER $9,302,300.00 TOTAL PART 2-WATER MAIN $2,727,500.00 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $12,029,800.00 • w =o 02°008 Bonestroo 00410-2 BID FORM i 1 �att� (M'0'111A(1NW 3UI51f10)p1OT1tl7013N NttlW L31tlM ONtl N3M35 A/N1INtlS 3 fi 1O3COad 9NIS5O>�T13AR!XIObO'15 Ago ��m ' NWLS1H9I3HJI2fdd)Id0 �� o ,,,,,==.7%.,4=2..,...'m lnaaoN '4 , ... 7'1--:.:-. _'l.11.11 I pa. '`■ I E 3 it .."I�'y�.�. ❑r,.74, ,,. ,,,,,:,,r,Y.",,,-.,,, ',11` ; ' .L1 x••X '1,I +1 w 3 , €,.. 7 A, ' ` I , -v I ` , I11gr ria I i 1 I , ' j,....,,,:i.—..,.1.r.L.'''..,. 014111*— ''''''-'4.: -I'In '' .N.: .— . i. I pit 'i::.�[{, t�a r t: F— ( ` J '' Y t' , T nil I. i` L a ,:11: ,s,..‘ ,.... X� '•'.yy/ �� ~ t" " cs -., /y.-` a � F z- -, . i . te• .�. . i /+� Q " . ii' � ,, c..�%\ t` . w„ / a P,, r"9 } rr R6 r©t t ` � I elm e T, + ( �GtO`I � .Y *R�t� w I Z1 .'14t + .G�l1�,�' ,J`i7 ,.rM s�',..- �,.• £'+= k t_ ,ry ��, R4ti++SY e.• -,N,....-14.4,;' �s ,y ,. -)' :5, .'�`' _ •0 '-`, '-'. '----.....'. N._5� day 36 ..rr - , '" �° i . ,........ �+`'� j y ice' ,i„, ,- - I• i. —---- ^ "jam„vrl i "+ r � �� o f.>~” y I d� .� .-... T fe- a r 1 4" :114'1. _"') r, 19, ri''' " 6,.... ''W7'� ��°L:� '".y t ��ZR r yy _n �t . � kLIJ �nC_�lW,� . �_, + Wei f ..'x ��l _ '' r. '1A , •'fir 7 9 R }� 7 Iii Lam: ,'. r>�" ,IJ' r ' I +�, } \_i .7t:'" I: 'NL, it; 1,..::,:,''• ' n^+S �rrJ„,.,—„,s i �5� —e ea<' 16ag- y I' rt /'i -r,+.r M� ', r 1.I� :":L jam' �� }r�- ;�� II �� ',s'®�,!r �I":1414,,;—�T�� ' � "y��.t�'' "yj ,'" � ,�'"+�G jr;`� � `�t� I is I Ir, •�' 711 ii ' �^yF_,,' I. • `'+lt±'_ ` fit 4`J, � �@�7C3<� Ertl! °"F r•-'1 A �E ry 1 '4 l ,-,:o..� -c I I� Z!� ,ate' � � �F I� + i �dv...•Its, s� v, y '[ `r.al n -�i , 14'4 '(,yep". , yia� ' j � .1 °]1 d ,ry. k->I�l es-ti,,,- I, m r 511, k" ?v 1 t. ,�„"JA t '.�' !. 4 �e– �'). y lira^-_ `, • i 'rr! ++ I• e_ sl C i . I� ih r 44t4s, T I-i 1,, 1.ii :., „. -.,,,, t. ''I . 1..-4'Il rkw.�! _ ;1 £�' k Ii •'•.�, T' It ,Ik'�01!! . "No ��L a t f M1•d "�' t• silk ;� ill�_.— s , ---' v iii .> i IL �1�,_. , pum, __ � , q'- ----- ._...,.,,-- ---- i,J,'°fSl dl 4 ,I 1 'eI""C";qC', • iL' i I' I !±°r►^' `r, 4: F y�l'; _ ',-1 Y� ;•4 .171+1 I �1 t I IA'mom Minh yp. I11551y,Q1pp1p5LlltfStSAiI o (wall loam gatsino)n4o11011Nnw raivm TOMS ,2 11 ^riry; 1E2:1 wawa ...111961 1-13COLId 9NISSOID AflJ XIO1D 15 Ir LS 1:; 4 NN'SIHDI2H)Wd NYC , , t , 41^44 • • . , „.4• „0 ) f • • .`• • -.57-Y/'6411114/E 6 " f • ies • )...1•,11.' • • TA• • . •4 • .„ 1„...[■„;7Wil;11410- • gig % . 16 6 15i11 ; ,• yrfl, 1111.- .• • •-•if • 'V. 744,, • Iwv! • . , - • . , Sg filiL> ' - N ▪ • . ?.• I. ▪ j_jj11111 _ *cC2. " 's• e • ,7.„'NL.14 . • - 07' 12) • c-V'" , "., 41* 'tee,„ ' • • -4 .• , J .„,- 4 •-4• ' 3•1","‘"' • ' • s • • , t4„, . ° s 11'414'1 *0 It■ J ';*.t!,2‘.."17.:"\ ' • •"274#4-Lii* f-*'•• • 4.0• „...„„...• ,.,,oja s-,s7 , ,, •Ito, AI" *V' '••• • • ...111.11MMOW; *.-4; •Z‘(f)' `irr - 7,..+•"".."-\ 7■27.111-. w• lc" - trat- 1• ' . , . , I • -r• -j. , . . . 0'4 `1 • , _ A• • -s* , • • I ... sjik, L•Ntif.a • kes.•• a• . 1109- \ - • AN',- ..--k-07! 4r, • 144' Jcv 414t iiia.4,41.4 .„ .1 artmr2,717_,A, - A 4.„„. • r! . • ki f T.•'• - \ , *. s'•4 b_181: • 7:r.1,; dko --...-ITIREMML7• EICk_'-•_ EL•3r4, • • •- • dr, , , . . , t_s_i C t .j - • ; • -et •,•••. Iwg =.s • - • = r A,-*Ai/1,Zr+. • o ?Lac rk, • • • 4. 4 •„,..J. • _A.-A , 4601111. - ,r4 ,440,R,TINE44 ^u". r • ,T.Izo':11-1 • f • t • • " iL 4 4*7971, Pk•-•4' t‘ „ f " •. • I- , , • , ; I '4CI' I I 7 '7,44_4: • • . , 4 ' • " 154 • 'I • • 1'1 • • , . . , 70;.41.ri J k • .•• - •1140I , , •, ,-F,'"1■",""s*. 'If' •,. • • - •-••• • :. • t'• t ' , • " • 44, , 4,111,0401*-- aA, • • • • • - IA\ . '4, • -- . • r7"-- , , _ •Ta-14,'" ■! I.."'• II •' ',ill • . MI% 110 Ir Nita- •N.s. f - • !IA • _ ,j•••• • vo • c-i,„• - -it it /me • , • . - • r ogrit_ii. _ 111„,11 L.LIjo ' ,,•"' 'Vr-r.ktr..c-c-',16111= '2;1, SINES.Lwaluis e.41ttutnIfISSWOCOLISISIESSUI141 - IIIIIIIIIIIIIII • . ___........- ..7. •IrS lekk '' '"'-- et,K0'11.1.00NW galS1f10)N101.13fXr1.111, NNW 113.1.tl,MotION;.1L.41AsAaS A:mums ■up.cu 1 ra Is i . ...,_e_....'= :1,......1.1:: .i.D______.--.----------3CC/d_d 9NISSOVD 0 ,, . CO 11 1 i '''''''" 3::''''''''Srirk . ------------. ,, NVI IS.1.H9I3H)111tid)IV 40! 4"' ' ■ •ri INIIIIIIIIIIIIII b 1 gliiix B. i 1 % - I 1 ° 1 5,-,,, _ . 3 -,- 1 ...____,._24.3---re'*7tI:1•••• ''''''' .-'' .„ I- , ''' ' 4 li41 ''',.,,4,4 ,, .,... . ,•,_..._ 1 , ,:,,,, - '1.:,,.,:i , . '-- ',,t kl.,‘,7',,,•11.'ic‘'••::..t. '-- - :' Y''j!' \ ; 4? .4 , • _ \ . . . 6 1111 ii' ' -- -*---4111* • r I.t.%1,1 i'r-'•1;-,' '''1-\ __ ,..._„.,,,,..: 0,,,,__,...,,,,,,,,,,,Ii..4'.1.''1:::';•.‘:'1:::'ik"- -'• ir.,''' .:`41,,r -, ' •.\ .- . ,•,,-'-N1 , , 0.-._-_ ,_ , ,:,s... 1 i.:,-‘-------'-'----- .4_ , ---.•-0*' - I:. 0-- -7:--:-.411:.77--,. -.-,• it--.Ir. .-..;-„,-:.. , ,, .--... - v*:-•7 1!".,-.64'..; , ,,;„,' ! ''... '''. '' . '' —..,--- ,_ . . . I ,.:.., ,,,,l.i., ik;II,t ...,:.".,.._i_i...-,,,,,A_'..,. . ., i,,,,,,A, ',' • - , I ..,!, '", • , I L / n 1 -,7. , / ..1- ,.112c Itt, ik 1 ' I% ' '. '''k''',`" ' ^ .. ' ..;.... '... ' ,.. -...a. ''. / 'L- i -- - ,-. ..11i. . , , , -.,• ,i I 1.! ,.. . r A'i , ,...:. , •,,,, ' ' r ii- 4 -.1k,• 1'• . , - . . r, , ■ 4l,i.t.,.. 3, "7. • -. y7`,,:,..' ''',. 1' ,',...,,' ''''..1' ' .,■: 'I .1',._i ' 'it/ .,', '',s., '., ' , , ■ I! wk. ".!.: .. -- , -..- .kk „...- il eAV eweued.• , .,,,,,,, 4, ......,_,A i lb -,"`"—' IlLi•S'' r•_ qt---t!"-:;-`4, ' ' i ' .,c. *‘1,.,1 --,- t- - :3a. •l ' ... 1. •••, •.....„ ■ —'a'..'-. ,' .171! ,. .. .... it a ..'4', '. : '.•, r-.. . . : ''•1 ,' ' i ,- . 4' , , ' .. 1...„:,-- ... .• ..:., , _ '-' .`-; 1 , . ' ' 1 k ": ki ri.-11,'. .:Li! _ ,,- - . ,, "r , .: , . ..., 1 , ''.. . t A..■ I ,,\, ' ,..: tt •1",''' . \ 'I:,.t.' i Al ; ''.CI- , • , - • ' - - - - . . . • . . .. ''. . : , AT-- .1, , , . '.-•r. 1_ ... -,77.. i)--vg..6 ' il 11 'I", „''.'0 .....;'?,,,, . ''' ,,i111 , t ■ ' • • fii ., , ,i, . ,.. , , / / ' / .. . . .. . . . , .. .. : _ . • .__,..__ , , ,,,I. 4 '', '' '11 1,. I. r ., ( - . 'OA _ :;',L \ : • .,.,/ i '' t .'' * /4 ' ..... —, "i 1) I " ' ' ' 1 '' - • --- ,t,tr 1 ..,-.4 , i): . ,,,,I ., / L., ., ..:1..•_,i, ., i - --------} ‘---11 ' ..•_;'''r'i''-, . -:: 1.':1;it' ', '''‘ 1: '`, •,',1 ;44:--'' 1' .‘ :,... k 0I-; ---:: I I 1 ,I „, ,„ 1., 1 . . ;., : , J , 1,1-, ; t..0. .. . . t , i ,t, , 0 •, . /.....” „... - tlA01 -. -,0.r 1,1 /'...,,. i .' . :'..r.'%'' ', .';r4'' /i „,,,, ,,,.,,,„I '',, !I/- ‘_-_:-„:,-...._.--_ . qxo 4 le 'Ilk- iiNs 14''''.''. :, t:i';'•".;,-- -14-1 111- _ '..-.-., 2 ', , ,-7 r- II '..,,,i• - -„ . .:: ', ... .....-ii■ .1. , , fj"t., ;,.. ' ,,, , _ , I . ' ..i.1 , - ' • 4 . . , , ....,,, ' flap, -, ,A--"': '------ 7z.*i.''- :- -;•: .,,,.,.., . .;:•..„„, , --_,•‘,,, , ' ' • 1 • II, i-,'''' :--4.-!.;".1”' -J .11—,.*i___ s-:-;-'.-I'.'• -'• * - --'' " ' '1.1 - - - .' ' '-- • -• -- st - , I 1:: " ix, - ——3' '' - - , 1-. ;31 .;,,' ', ,,,• 'I--- -Z ,4. . ,..-',- -.,■ _,4f ' ' -, ' I ''' I 1 flier \'' ' •-.1- a3 If% I ' _ ' nu A, JO Xe i, 1 - !1",,„,,,,i.'— ' g---•!--'-• -- ,‘.7•6 ' 'of' - 1 1 '• i't ,.. '. *---;1' 1.' '.. 17..;,p '..4 1,x. ,.. •,,,z' . . . . i.4 .L-_-,-....1,-, ''` ,I '1 1'' ' j#,LL-4=" ' 1'14' '' 't'''.'•';,- *: ' . .J.,:;1#8' Ii',i, , . . A - ■- I---.- • . ,--3 .•' -. • ,.; I j.,,--",.. .1 , -,,, "61t1"I'.'-'* ._._./' ' '•"'4111,____.,. '' 11 'el' ,---7-7-117-7,-'7711-'- s ' ;it''3i15';'•;:' 11,l' 4.-f- '-c?' 1, F.<''' 4 .7 ... • -• ' ' 7 ... ,...p.,„/ 1:-. ,'._ ; :,„. .*:, Nti- , tin ->piti*-;7411' .11 ' Si.'113.H)1•'— -,,,,--.,,7-;.:,,, ' -t.,,\., - • T • , , ,...- -: -, 'll-„•-„.-;`.;,-, .--. i . , . . f I i''..til ra' .1111"1:1-'I.'H II,r.'-r'.,,,:...:'...1('i,., '.'•1'1.41,,,,ii,':`.■ ‘ „...:„.:11 :t.' . ', !:,'fi,...,,, , .il„. ',,,, 1 4. . ,.,,I.,,uti.,,, . ,,,,,s.v.064.,, ,:.' 1..L,'‘j,'.' : ' . J '-'7' -'. .' ;":,.`.1.1 ' ...,, "...41 0.---i. I. , 1 t-!•F. .-,---',..-_.,,. . . - • \- vi- ., --1..1.,',....,-.., 1 . - • * - ' IN 100VB 110VIII(1.PIOCIASLIItS51.40INISLIIISMaN 1 h g g,g --'600- "tV 1 IF, 1,111; W Ago'cl', : 114$ 11 ,,...,,,:=,,7,.1.. E m 1d°' " a UPON Mt g lir 5 !ik 1 1. ,....7;."'"'V.tr.'IZ—.... - -' ' ''.-"' '. I , •:' . :''''.';''.' ?: • •, (m." *3aNCIAlal. id)SM°91NIIHISS°V3°139I:j'IHNIINIVH3:'2:XWIAN;f:INVac:131SMS"VIM'S . .,-.• '1. . , . , ,,. ,. ' .'''P 1 ' - ''' ' 1 P. - . ,/ P :Cc;1 I '!": i• .,11c:,-. .c.;;T„-A-c4 :lc c'':"'* i.4.,44---4 .4 . p ' - u I ' ' 4).''''N' . 4" 1 '' I:;1i r,'. Z., t 100 e4 4,'..„.4k: ., - 1 ...-.0 , .‘,.'4...„.: 1'6, 1.--'i--____._,''':46-,..tr--::,....,., •....,-,1,-,t,„:•,, ..,--:111111 % ,Iiii 7?....,..., , ,,.' . 1 '''4 4 r ' :77.17'1 •..'4 I' ' i --,02 1. ,EA 4,,,,,%' li : , - - '.' ' ' I'84 '. •-r 1'441 ,INI • . : 4, 'i.,' ' ' . • C,t 1 g '' . 4‘p 14 ..„,..,,y, . : 4,1 ' ' ''* '-' ' '. „,„t, !' -= ,_ •••• , - -j I 1 I I I 'V •*"-- *-'' - ''' ' '1. 1'ili•-•” .,) -.,•-1 1 ° '..1;4 1 . 11 iki»:-.- -,:-;,?;4. 0 .. ' '1 ' 1 I 1 , ' - ' , ‘ 4.' ' '''''''' '''4'. ' ''. ' l' '.* 1 ‘- '7, ...4*'• **".,,A;',,4,..- '''',. ..__1 p''' 14'. '' I ' . .,. ... 4 ,. .6.i .41; -",l''*.19 '''': I f L.- :',:,i,,1 A '... ■4'.\, ,, . '''''::,=';',1---1 '4'. ' ."=_V---;*'''''- - -*V , '''it' r.iki ‘...L*, - - ' ...---•,'E I ' ,/,' c, ct.F1 ;411,,_ ,cc. `1,-,--,---:-.....*.,,..;,,-..,,,,, 1.:-:,:t:7,4., -,,',,,-;rT. '' - ' ..•. .. - ,,.. ,r,j4 , ,,,,,, , ,:i.' .", ,,is:;$:,;_.,,—- . •-, -,, It ,! ,,-, , ';;".11-titcruf f rc: cli, • 4 • wink ,. • ,-.) '1 .4 4'4 ' ..:4''',4''%44.1.' - - • 4 •,* f-,.;,, i ,-.1 ,•,' =* IN ,-. "--.:*'-'wor '' .', ' '--' •- , .,,,: 1 r:7 • '..•"A . :''''' ' • ',--*1"1*... 1\ '\ , 1 ;1 '--,9 L A. ., ,._. . ,4-4z , LivowanuanOit,51.,!9;/%6401:_,_ r ' 7 :"'",,,..4..- : - • ' . -1.,. ' i';:., ., '';-t.-;..,.:..*:- .... ,i,.i''''.''...ittt_''. ' '-.-• ‘----1 --- ,. _. . . 1 ' et' . , .. . . 14 . ,'f,'•;A* • c1Cfr' ic,,:c f4 4;444 , . .. L . ,• r--- ,. , • . _ 'A , i• , I '::::: ''4•1W 1111' I '"' f 1 ,4- - • • \\,, ,,b . , _ , „ , ,.. : . _ ..,.,,,, • sity.. *--....'.:- ,..? :',. t • '.0 l' ./.4;4.,' ' 4 in :- 4 1 4.' ''.4 HI ' - ' ' t"...7,.' .,, 1 " l' • . i:,,e 1 ii — . , ./,,, , ,. ,,, ._ , ,_ .„____;•,,,, .1.,,„.p.. ,,,,,- ,...__ . .. 1 11 ' ''-' , ,', ' 1, t • . . -1 _ o. 4 : ,r , •'s 1 ' ...1,1 ,.,'1 , III , ,41.4.----b* M :66' ,'.' :4j' Q. r--AC- .1 ii.*vos, •!-::' '", , ' 1 1 . . ___,.. .414. ,r,.......- , c < • ,.:. , ::t'. : ::.I' ■ ,111 el : h, 1 . . 1 .1 . .1' --' 1 :1 . - - '''' ' ... ,,,; ; I , . , . , , . . . ' 1-- ',-- 'e • . 1, ,. i, ,-- 411 ' or 11,Pi„_,,i4. f - LaioN Dnuany uario ,- 1 , , ,,;, , 'ii, . ,, L. ,_- .,. _ — ..• . I 1■", t‘' . 4 i t;Atk Neia. :.,4: ',' i I' ' ':. , ' , { ' ,, : .4: I,,,, , .•- e ?.:11-, . , :: '., . ' 1 _ 1 pei- IL 1 .... 1! ...., , , • 44'1. at„...,=„:,...:1, ,..,,,k, • • 1 ., • , , . ..... ..,___ . ,-. ..i_tlitt, --,..._.—_ .. -,,,-., 11,,,1- —..- =-----v. 7-`", .• '*'-`,t-',, `I'All - 0 :i. _- Ir., - 1 , . . •, . • i. •.- -, - • . , (it - . . PNWSEMITOVIM IWICOMati.550.01.arAOSLIIISIstli 0 N•NII.NNNI-•------m•-•-------_ • .ii. ... ,,,...;_vo_rt. (t)_,. rim il _________..,,r,...,--:-----.::,,r;::.::t ,, Xa71..032°ICSadind:111:01311aDNI11:v3:10:'''.1.S1M3S Avvii. 'NS.. Inlii.elalsla,I,s.1.ililulligi.,Il Irltiii cu n lir A ,e,a . ,.......... 1. r ti' ••■----a..3/4*. ,,It., NI -..,...- , Nt ._-,----- • ..,. 1 . r IF- 4 c„ IrL'I: F 1:-;' .,- i. I. .- ..ek li,, Qtill rit NW:S.I.H73.1)17i1.d 7:1110.4,7_ a r..0 ..4* . 1 .,■2 ,,, A .+ A- ' I 1 I 1 Ili 1 1 — • , ii k 1 W .1 i ' I * Vo ' 1111111 , • b I A. 1 9t. , 1 E -.:1*A -I ■ 1 1 \ 1,1 ,.4, 4$14.1.104.‘aetlaNd' „ekLeui.OT_____,... T:Iliglimiswis - — I III i' ' • '' * '-.."-''-- ':' I "l.-,.76■'■ \ 1' ' ■ It '" 1 .; `,,,.. ,,,, A 4 , t' ' ,oil '''.; 1,. nri i,' I I.' --, ) I 6.3',0t. 1 del "-w t 1 I I --wv- --- ... 41 ra' I _ I ,, , ,, ., -t,.. • . I , .., • . rst •rs .T ----- '11 f -"' '\ .-/- 1--- - .. 4 , v I L Al , t 1 w 1 , ■ r ttl ', C , i zE.1 I 1.' CC • I 35 k \' 1 rn 1 ,e, 1 V I 1 I —I] I 1 I 1 ' ■ C 7#,. __ . . — --- --- ' --,=----4 , - . - ., ., - - • - - t, '' ."1 .' . I -v. I ' ..Y.f:... "--7 i -..: 11.1- 1 ‘ 1 ' '-- ',21 11 ' .." 4-".1,.....16 ''16 41b__—1*-*--‘----- ,, #1 1 • - ■ ,„,,.. • ' .• +4' IA ', t.„.•i I 1 ' r. M 1 I ' 4 1 •'t_...-C ' c"" I ' IIIIIIII■ - gpr t M, I i. . i ,- ,,,,, • --.---... - ilighl■*2.Lf•il "--- 'or) 1 iit , .1 r r r , .1. I ;...,-;i ' 11 , , % . ,, - I 1-- -'v 1 ', 1 _ .. .,, . 'III . 4,. ..4,,... "I ..„,,, r r 1' : 1 .14-0„;,,,,,•,.•r c. . 111'4 „ . ii.,,,, _ .kel ,,11-1..,,,, , :, , ,„ 74"-,, - ',:',.. ) ,'-, ‘, :.-71-• H. ' ; . ,r,42/S„'43, "`" ),...r„.„,. .4'*, .,' - .- 1.,:•.-A7- ,. A ,-......- . .. . -- — --- 1 - , r 4,--',., , „,.. ,, ..+ . , ,,..14 vi ..t.P'sTri' — 4,, ' ''l' - . "... ,',.., . '. , i, *' 'f# r -'-'4), 4 " It, 00■ s i . . ■ OW *1 --r. s,s,.• ,r--- ..-1 .,, ,,, ,--A4 ... li- -- -- - I \ - '-\ 1 1/4.,,- 4, I. '''' ' • ' /WA. • tir ;'" ilifirlli 4-'4. ' ' \ - — , .,-,, • e,.._ j I., r , , — \ ,, „,,,- ,ir f , ,......•-,,,, .,...• ..4.•,. , i a • -1- I, , , ti*,1140 ,Ire,. ' .• • - , A,,,,,-..,,,,L ,. ,... „,./ii..., ■ ,\ 1 .1 5,,,. . , ,.„.,,,,,,_,..--=„,..ir if.,,g,,,,, •_ w"7-74-77,,,41ii....- -.. ' - .. .., , el - WI ersc4 arouse r.1.100gatU95\6040,3\WM, o a ,,,, Q �,q '(1Q'.T..�w�y�,j awry ('M'O'lI100NW 3OlS1f10)hI0I1t70i-IN NNW 1131tlM ONV U3M3S Atftl1D(S 3 �4 n1 7r o .� a Broad 9NLS502i7 J ADJ xtoa�is i !2 m a;1,0 1• !, +:.su NW'S1HJI3H)Rib d JIVO I -a ........ n n . , rr 1 . - . NW , 'S ' : 1 ' : .''''.",1`..';'''l --::,,,-1 1„ —"It '''l''''.1:112' ' ' L--.''''lk,l'"II § 1 1 1 1 i 6 0 Fr 11 2 !1,1,,,. ` . '' 1 I I 1 FE I �l 1 1 , ,.,:.,!',. fraing.`;=„.t: .....,7 :-,...„1, 1)..",..i . -, , -,-,,4 - gt,is IN L.I.L.V.....:t,sok,'*Cir..1-67.;L L L L I LL 11 'L,L ,i -- {, 'I ,.' IV, ", r � i .��"1'1,,I'II ;: x kr op �� I� N .tti •-•,44.01.•',„ .- „, . ,,.. Al. .4.,,,, ,,, ,„ik .,..,_... -0 i, s r s �-0 `. ' ,' 44't,e ' ; • / f{l "* '�`•�i,; . • I J 1• I 'hi '. a I. g s: �� `�� it '+ �:� i t,�! It�t.-1'�:0W. .4"V4".A{07 s f'. e r srt.. �� L y $,� �- d�' w '. jt + �� c� ''".1i 1 ---...,,,„,•,... .:-..11M., -,1.. ir,'/. .1:., :;.-'2,) , fi„i : aF a ....,-; '....., : - :.'*.'"7,ki.`1,'....":, -,g'i .,— 9 . ',„: ` " .,.. . ,,. r 1 I r .� e _,N,.„ t � ��, . ,. , .... . , 1 Ai :I'. I I: I.I'' ' .4k,... , ... rr7 _ __=__, , , 4,r,- I i 1 ' *S.4111N/IIh 6'M'WOlSf1115511Qg01of(w I --per/ w 0.— " 'p0 ('M'O'N 1WNW 30151M1)NO[1tl7013N NItlW U31tlM aNtl 113M35 ANtlllNNS' o ;'" II �'`N ," —• ° y'}3COtid 9NISSObO a3AR1 X10IfJ•1S o € �3 �'° W�S1H9I3H>121tld)Itl0 [7�� m r ., is - � �1 II i • ‘A.1,''. .**,;o. ' , '' yit .,,, \ , , - . 00 , 1-. ' % a .7filgt 1_ _ 'll � �` I " q b / r- XI. Ii I III I f- Ik 15 Y I', // I i Iii I 2 111111111 ter/ a Y �1 .-4 r 9.-qr v i -�,�-�- '� I T r .444,a !� ,,,,\..4..4444,... C, , art:r.. i` rl ra • - \ \r E---1 m itt.t 1- ■--i-161 1111;,t,, IV I ,r fs i r.i _ I I ,i I 'ill _ 4,4.444t416094-4, `� 1v- i t e1•..0 0 __F� 8 K + 1` 11 x��a;,. k l . f Y ,.. ',imp .l _ F I -.. -- - ., .c.".11"-"--...' . s ;a�i�,.w '' :A*Fr � , "• ,mw4.. x111'...:. r t I. �I , ,Z� ! sir° * t ;„...:11'..4-'-‘,.. �> il �v iii f 1 I; V Mf s , . � ,r ti,• / 1.11 . x t " r ft a. {' ` ,1 , 2 + r I. °�— '----1--'----'— = �:. - Idll' It i °�y _ 11 U ` Ws' fix' -__� R1, p gyp" J I '� ? ' E JAI 'mss+ • ,3 tit , qqI Ty z , .. pem-K- i _.1 L, I, . ._, ry---.--44. ,fie F PE rxy �ll ,�.. ,, r Rtes -t h v t j I .s •,,. ,. ' �y..'i t . I i L.0,,14t,,..F C y ' O i 42. I fiI 04 i;x y 1.0" 81 ► • ''' Y}'r ',_ I fix ° tge*,w at 416k ,,, esk..4,•:,,,,', ir,,,,,s'1,4i ,,,- . .1 • f Fi' •t .I Ham,.riariun d'°'[SNzkaI{SSh,NQOS9rlIrz' • � a, (M'OU WW 3afsno)NOLIY701311 NNW N31VM ow U3M3S AUUIINNS i #Q O s "" l ^ ' 133W5*Jaw °@ z M Ir� 2 Y 1 1J3N[W O Jd S9J,NHIS9SOJb7 H 2)3RlAIi1 td XNVJ O'1S ¢1 r • £ I$ „: „ ®::° YY "-- jrq- Z b iI L''.. lt-,I r I II# 41 . r 1 . 4 I ;'...71'77--\ay �P';,f`e �I i� ? f, ; � Pr � .-..,4,.....,:.• r•� r 1'�6* � a I C��.JL..*�"i9•lm ilk ilk '' �-�� ..! '`�,�II �G215 L r� hi 1A+es �1 G �t9iTG`i � 'X�..; w J• �i�d�r�i�a/I,�i`" �b,-'," ��1JF+�31��' i�; rI lfJptl]IR.TJ�YY7 1>•... %�J�'��i� ��y,�" 1�r e , . Alt �K � ,I C`_` P 11�ii:t.i ' /,T2.7 1ANI! ,G7..#i7 t-;.;li7 '� `"1 $� h+ e 7Na �8' ��°® � r�ryll'�iil�`� oa��,f,7u"-��, L� YS t !r. j� ?. R+1 1 ,I L:EI 71 1 E rY ,^ r.:a�C�r I� tr .° I ��`• 11? -7 0�� r11� '; li I 1 �� I I r du rxa 11Jt4i��/'I )� ,,� .w+� �. &,,�.(,F pl[ ''..',...7- �J51,h� 7 7 �� I z+�� ' ri 'a I ,.ry -� t it , � I�*,7; .4 .a. r ' ' yi a gr4 r d ° r � �r y �% ��4...p : Jt� w r�,,,tr �A ® ��7, �� F.. ', t � ' � -1 7rl l' E 1� '' . � y 1�17�� i � "M i I � �ii T'.J - e � 14 r 1. , i r � 1 r7 7 3 115LI_;Jr F E. O Tr .n "' ® r,49 .e .� 1 r � rti,:- ',E.,- irfnl w � , �'� -A.;., A I�.!4, „All =r 1 , 9 i p LI:3 11x1 j J['' w i /1 I ,dC f 1►-�,1 � i tKi j[e� , i t, 15I.s � e 11•r , yhf �[s r flr � 431t. 1119' I _ �Ifl . $J I.1 r L-4.44.7.---,,,,--:,-:---'7:11,1—'—'1-1 1, . . P it11111'--1_311411t-N1 ,,,,,A'• �� !_ r� D '��NI @Nillllllll c • w�!'S �'� 51 t �J +"~ r,,,,..-, , 1e mid`, _ l ir: ltia 1JI,",. X34 '�tl � + s r Irs-a-=a��r� f �$I ,,„ �+1j1u, ' .� as w0/ v;1 T --,1 6117,F!"�[rt_IV.,i^s IeMi� 1 ri " R * I 11d1�I�'rr rff L•-, M Lei I s Ilirr �c n?i,wod „z r ,, i4 ; ,�j 11 •I-•G'�'�a 11 4 ,,��,�,�IF 9 :iit i f fj''g3 'ke4� _'r<!y • '' �f l .'', ram' II f lRRl"r y �*�*i^yclu,ca� .ca 1 ( 4 5. t ,;'bl -III �1 4. * 'W„r +I ,,,.., 9�.,„a l t ' y,.r .. , II�t�' gSlr,, lek1 . f t _ re'17.7 A IA; -.± ��. r :, ail ir-lbw otiLte I .f �4 � IIh y o � R.7. .1 % 14! , :- s i. ,.3,,,,,,,,,,,:. . • - • ' . ) 'r� ti i I t;C Anti •FM 05:151 TIUWU,awrmascurst4ocroosartsstmal • 5t .1Ru • 6 r,trs: 'rw St. Croix River Crossing Project Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights November 10 th,2011. • SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 1 of 36 Table • Table of Contents Section 1: Purpose of the Document Section 2: Authorizing City Council Resolution 11-06-18 Section 3: Summary of Total Anticipated Costs Section 4: Cost Breakdowns&Estimates: Update on Financial Impact of St. Croix River Bridge Project I-11,13 Tautges-Redpath—Nov 8`I',2011. Section 5: Cost Estimates: Stormwater Ponding,Trails,Signalizations and Frontage Roads Section 6: Appendix • Executive Summary -.Appraisal—13RKW—September 3'`1,2011 • MNDOT Cost Estimates--Updated 2009 • Tautges--Redpath 2004 Cost Impact Report • Bonestroo(Stantec) Utility Cost Analysis_.Sept 9th,2011. • • SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 2 of 36 — .,. • .. .. . , . . , • . • • • . . . O: . ; . ; . . 1 ., , , l. '.,...' ..: .-.•..• :.,.'. . .•••;.,:.''.':.•.., •••...,y.:- ••......•. ": . •. • ., . • . •.. • . ., . . - . • . . . • - •:•••• •%.•:..•:.• ••• : , -....... „ " ..•,.—••..•.•:.,:.• •:.•-............. .. ......• .....„:„........: .: ........:...„ ..„. .. ....„...• . ...,.......„.„.:....„....s.:,, .. .„. '''.:::::::::::::.::::.'"'"'::.:'''''""'..::::,.........',::,:.-:-............-.......::....,.......,............._;:.„.„ ....:.,.... ..-:. ,.... ... .. ... .,. . . . . .. . .... . .. .. .. ... .......,,..,...,...:...„,„-.............:........:,........,.....:,...,.....,..,...,..,.......:..:..........................:.......:...,.,..........:.....,.......... .... ...................,... ..•... .. . :. .,., • , • . . •.. '',::••.. ., •.. ..... . .,•...•,. .. ;.. .. *.•:. ...... ,: ...,....,„ ..., . . ::.....1.,.....— ...*.....-.:•...... ,. . . ': •. •. . '."..•.*.• ..:'...••....., .....".•,.... ...::... ••. .. ", , .. . , .. ' ' - , ' • ,. • ... • ..; ..,... ... ... . . , .. ..., .., ,...... . -••• ,........... . . ..• . . ..: . . ..... ... , . . ••:.:,,•• .• ...••.. ,•. •. ....,. . . - ••• . •••:,••...••. .. • . . . . . : ,•••:.-•••:.:,"•':•:—.'...",'''....,•.•.. •' '..''.•*,•'.' . .. • •'.•• ....: .:;..-...::''•'''.'::•.'' ..'....., .... . , .„: ....„.. ..—... ..— ... , •. . . . •' ",•:•:•..'.:.:•,,'.'.::: .. ..., ,. „ . ..'.......•.:,................,...;...........,..•..,..........::•. ............,.............. :.: .:. '... ....... .,. ..,......,, '...'•••••••• ' .. ' . . . , -. ' ,,..,....... ..•.....•, ..—„,. .., ...,••.., ,, ••.•.:.. , ...-.,.,... . , . • • .••. ,•....• : , . . . •'•...L'.:,.•.'•■ ., ••••••.... •.. .. , . ••.:•, •• • . •• . , . ' •-••••••••• ••••... ... . . .. .••..•:..... ..........!...•-:-. —.„ • ,,. — ,. ,.. , .... •.• • :......•..:.,•• ••„ ;.• •':' ••• , -. . . , . . ' • ,. . , • - — . , .. , . . . .• •-- ... .. .. . — " • • , .., .. . , . . • ' •• . - -..— „.... ... . ••• •••- •..:',•:,..... .. ,••• .. .. . •-••:•'........ . •, ; ...:.•..•,:"..-. :,•:-•••••“' :.....,- •;••• '.'. ,. .. • . •:,1.1.:.'•—...‘....,.-.:...•s.'.:•--..'...'...--•:'•..,-.—..''.•:...',..:•,...:,•,. .....•:.'::..•—.... ,... .;:. ••.........1'.....:.•:.•,.,•• . ••,... :••••.•....:.••• •••••••-•'.. • •..". ..'. ..-....'.• • ' ••• '. •• •• ••• • • • „ . . ,....:••••••••••••••••••„.. ..... ....„.. .. ., • , , . . ' . . • ' '.• ' ..—.: .....•••••• ••• .. .: „ .• . . ... .. ..... —• • ' - • s - 1 . . . , • ••• ••• ••• •••,,,•• •.:....„... • . . • , • ••••. . • . • • •• ' ''.•••.• \ • ...•. • . •... ' ' • . . . • ' • Section. • ••••••..:. •• : ..'• :,...•:%.......'; , , . ...•... . . . • •'-..,.....: -..'.... •„.-• .. . • •- ,.•:•.•.., --.• ••••• .• •,•••' ' ' . ' "• '•-. :.............•••• • ••••••••••.. . . . . . .. '• ::,, ., ; ••,,•:•,; .*.-....." ..• . •••••••••••••:•••••••••••••••• •„,:•••••, . ............; . • : •••‘-......„.„. . •••• ........„.,..,............:::••••,•:.. .,....,:,:..,.. . . . ................... ............. ,..F.i., ....‘...:.... ..:......D.'. ... 0 1 ........„.„.... ..:.., : .. . .. , . •,• •..... •••. . ,..,...,.....,.,..........„.... . . . .. •.. ..; , . ••• ..:, ......... :..,..•: •. ......• : ., . . . , . • • : • • ,... • ' 's . 2 : ..........• ........15,,....••••••-• e...oft .. e:,-,....,9•.••••••••••01-.. ..a.....: •.. .-.........:•,:•••••-•..'...-•• • ..'''''":''''''''..."•'-...:::..:2;.....:.:'[..;•-•...:......-...:'........-..:•:,:-.....:••••:••••:.•••••......•:.:•••.:.:..,..,„...:,....:••••••••,...,.........•:•:.....::::,..::•••:,.... :,....... .. ... . ‘ . . . : • •...... .. • ............ .... ....,..,.....,., .. ,..... ...... . „,., ..,.. ... ... . ••••• ,.. . . . . . ...... .... . . , . ." "•. ..• • .... .. ..„ .. • •••••• .. . ..... . "..... • •••:••• •• , •. . , • • .. •. . . • . ...„:„ ., .• „ ••••. .. •.••,...••••, .....••••• :•,•.:•. . ......• .... .... . .. ....,..,......... . . .••••,.•• ••.....•. , •••......••.....„..,.• ,. . . ., . .,. ... .. , .........„.. . .............. . ..: •••• . .:.,• •. .. ,........„.:.. ... .,.. .,............,....................,.. ..„...„..„.. ........ •, .. . . .. . . . . • ...•••• . ••••••:‘:..:-....:•..-.••••••:•-:••••,"•:••.:..-.....:.,•:::•......., ...,,,::•.:,:.................::•••:•••,:•,.•••::-.:,;•••••::•....., ....-:.,,.....-:::::.:.:••••::::: :...„....,•:•••:•:..••••••:•:-•:.....•••••••••..:.:••••••:„.•:.:.-..;-:::-....-...::::...:•:" •••••:•••••• -•:..•••••-•::::.:.,. .......:„ ......: :. ....:::::•, ....:.:...:..,.::::,:::::::::..:,.....-.........•••••• .••••• •••:„..........;.:.•••••••••••:•••••• :,.:::•••::•:•••,•-•...•••••.:.....: •:::•:::•,•:.:••••••:-...-:i..:••:-.:-...:•••:•::::::•:-.•••••:•::.:.•::::•:.:,••••••••••••••'-.............::-.:,••••-,.... ,• ••••••••••••••••••... ..".:•••••••••••••:....:.•„:•.::•••••.::::•••••,...::„...,....:.....:••.-.::-,.:„.••••::••••:•••••.,.:••••••.,:•:••:::,.:,•••••••••,....i.......,,,.....:„....:.....::,-. • .. •.. • .. .. .... . ••• ••••.........••••• .......... •••......_. • ••......•••••••• ..•• .. .,.,.... ......, .. ....„„ . , ,• . , . , •••..•.,,,,•............:••••:„..„.....:....,....,.......... ,•.•••.•.,.„..•..... ... „. ••••,, ,, , .. ......... ...................,.„... ..,......,,,........,. ......„.,..._ ....._,......,...,.............,.......,...,„..„.. .,.....n.........„......,....... .,..,..,.... ..... ...........,...........„.........._.......,.....,., ....,..,.,..„..............,..,.. .....,„:,.,:..„,...„..„„,...„,„,.......,•,.:,..„,:...,....,,...„...,:.,.,.„..„.............,,......:„..„,.......,...............,.....,.......„,...,....,..„,....„,....,„,......„,,..„.....„....,..„:„..:,.•,.........•..„,:.,......,.:...,„:...,..,.......,,,..,,.....„,„,„....„.,•,..„,•.......,....::...:.„.,...„. • ,,, , ,.... . . . , - -•-••••••••"•••....."•"_•-••••••..••••• .....""""..•••• • ••••".•.•••,.....,..,„..,. ..,• .... .......... ...•........,.. ...... .. .,........ ...,. ... ....•. . . . .. ., . ., • . "-."..--••••••••,..„...,.... ..,, ,_. „ ... .. . . ... .,. , ,........... ....... ................,,... .. ... .... ... ..,...... ..„. ........... ...... . .. . ._ ..... ... ...... „... .. . • •.„ • . •• ...... ... ... .. ..•.. . ..... ... . .. .. . .. ... , . .. .• • , .... .. •• . ... ,. ... • ... . . .• . .. .. . . ... . ...,......:,,..„•„••:„,•„..........•••:„.„.„.,..............••••,,,..,..... •••••,•,,•,••••••••••.•,•,...•••„.•.. ..,.........,...,.:....... , .. ...... .. .. •• • .., ...... • •• ........ . • .: ...., , .. ,••••••• ••.• • ,.• I. . . . . s' .. ".. '' '...‘•...' .'"'. ...•%.*".•".....' ''.........‘....• ".'' ..."•..•.‘.,•...'.•''..•.......• '••••.... ...,.••••• •.,...........„.,.. ..... .. .,,.. ... .. ..... ..... ..,., . ... , . ''."''...''....".'..." •....S.......... .•..•,'......•‘ .......•.....,. :.. ... .., ... ................,........., .. ...... . . . . , . . ..,....„.„.... ...,..........,........,., .,..................... ................ .......,.... ..... .,.... .....,.............. ...,..... . , . ...... .. ... .,....... . ...,... . . . ., ., . ,.. . .. , ..... "•.^,••••••.....„.......t , , ,. so , ,.. , . ... ,, ., s , .... . . , s , , ..•••,.,.....„.....,......„,......„,.............,.............„.,„,.....„.........,.........f..4...,..„......,...,..,........,..?„,......„.„....„....„.....%•.....„...,.......••,........,.....:,..,,,......................z..........,...,•••••••,•::.....••••••...,....:..,..:..,..:;........,..,............:•......"..,......'•,....•••:.•••, •,`,•••••••■•••....;,.•.....••••:••:•••••••...........•;,.......,.4;:•••:,',. . .. ••••.. •••■••••••••-•••••••••—•........,.......,,.....,•••••,. ,.••.........••••••■• ..........,..•.....,......• .,•• •.;•••••...,....••••.••...• ••••..•••• •.••• •••••••••••••••• ••• .. • •• ••'•• . . ••• ... • ■•••••• • •• ••••••••„.•„••••••••••,.,.,.....;..................•,.................:•-:••••...........,, ..,...,:..................,.......—....:..,....,...........,:..,..•4... . .••••••••••••• ••••..,.. •.•. . • .. —• ... ..•. • •••.......... . .....,............, ,...—.......,......,,,,,,...,,,......•,.. ,.•• •:••••••;•..... •...•••• •.-•••• ....., ....,..••,.,...,.•••••• .....,,•.••••,•.,•:•••.,•,...,:,.....,•••,. :••••.•.. . •... ....... ... . . . .. ... •.•• .... • •••• . , •. .•• •. :. ..... . . .••••••,•,•—•'•",,•••••.•••••.'"': '''''•••''',."."'''."•'•••.••• •• ••• s..•"' '" •••— •••• ''' ."., •'••.•••• •• — '..•—. • •• •• • ." '•.•'. • • • • • ' ' • ••." • ••• • ' ..■ • ••••••.., ••.-...••,•,•••:••••••••:••••••••• ••...... ••••• •••••••••••,••••••••••••• , ••••••• .....,•..•••••••• •::., ••...s...,•••,..,•••••••••:......... . .. •.• :. •••• .. .. .... • .. . •. . • • ... • • •" •••.. • 411:::::::::::::::::.:3.,::::::::::::::,...';',::::::,....:1 'il:.....:11.::::;...,..:;.?::::;:.:'`..z.:.:%;':.:::.),::::.::::::::::..'.....:-....,.:.:.....;::;,:'':.:',....C.:•'.,'.-7.:::.1:::::::.3:.:..;:::::?:;':-::'7::',',''''.;'''''''''''''''',14ki4iiiiiii::.:'.: :.i1..•;::'.;:..'::.‘•::::'........:.:::... ....:,.:..::::'....!:.::::::;',...i*:•.:...:.:?....:•::•:::::::::::.,:i..:::::',::::::::i...:.:::',....:::::'......::......:1'..`::'.......-:',.-:....?.....::::-.:::.....;:.•:::: ' .:'......::::.'.:::•;:::.':',:.1.. .:::..............::J.':1!..::...'.:;::•.';.:Y:::.:::.:::::::R.::::•:::::::•:.....:.:..'s.'ls'i :',...':;.:1:::.:.'.....:::::igiiWic4ifii...th9tY..::..9!911 •:..:...:,...:•.:': ...........-: ::;:..........,',.:...:"........,..:.',..........."..:::::::•::—...........................••..' ....................•....',..'..... . ,.. • . . ... ;.'-''''''.......:::::::::.:•?•:::..i,.'..,:.:::::,...,..',...,:::',:sFPP.I•;.i: s!!r;•... . ..1...,::...:...:..-.......:::.,....,....;.,..,:...,......,..:.............:.::::.........:....:..,..........,...s:,..........,......„...........:„.. .. .... , . . , .....r.,..:..,...:‘,..:...-,....:.....•.... •• . • • Section 1: Purpose of the Document In June 2011 the City Council directed that there be a synopsis of costs prepared that endeavored to summarize the anticipated costs of various improvements related to the St. Croix River Crossing Project on the City of Oak Park Heights.This includes a summarization of costs in three methods,being as follows and is outlined in Section 3: I. Direct up-front costs 2. Delayed- long-term costs—Twenty Year horizon 3. Direct Incurred Costs to Date The values and amounts discussed herein are of course estimates based on discussed layouts and several years of communications. This document does not in any way suggest that a specific policy track be followed,but rather to begin to enumerate costs should particular choices be made. Moreover,the data enclosed is based on estimated costs and until such time as the Project is specifically refined and agreements reached,the ability to determine more refined figures will remain elusive. Ultimately, the City Council will be required to assess and compare potential City costs from the Project to the benefits to City residents, businesses,etc. III DISCLAIMER; The City reserves the exclusive and specific right to revise,amend and/or append the information enclosed, If the data enclosed herein is in need of correction,please submit suggested corrections to the City in writing with alternative estimates and justifications for such corrections. This document refers to the St.Croix River Crossing Project simply as the"Project"and includes all general elements. III SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 4 of 36 • • • 0::: .. : : . ‘.. . . . . . : Se :Authorizing City :Council Resolution --- 11-Q6- ::8 .... ....... .:...:. ....: ..... .... . ......::::.: .... : ..... ..... . ......... ..... .. ... .......... >>.. ... . ..•,..;:;...: .. :. ted.0 st l ads to:the:Cit,oi..Oa$Park.Fleights:..:...::.:. .::.... :::.:.:.. : .......:.....:......:.........SCRCP..Estiina........A..:rT)P .... ,.. .:.:.,.Y.. :. , ....:..... :..:. RESOLUTION NO, 11-0 6-1 8 • CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY,jVIINNESOTA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO PERFORM A STUDY WITH REGARD TO THE COMPILATION AND FUNDING OF POTENTIAL COSTS TO BE INCURRED BY THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS,SHOULD THE ST.CROIX RIVER WAY CROSSING PR(I.TE(;T PROCEED WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights is aware of efforts that have been advanced to legislatively allow the St.Croix River Crossing Project to proceed,notwithstanding entreat determinations within the federal courts and the impact of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, mid, W.1.1T3RUAS, the City is aware of projected costs for construction and related enhancements that have been identified by the Minnesota Department of Transportation should the Project proceed,and, . WHEREAS,the City may be asked to participate in tetras of sharing costs,to land acquisitions and right-of-way necessary to make the needed improvements all as a part of the. Riverway Project and the Trunk Highway 36 improvements corridor improvements that would be associated with the Project,and, WHEREAS,the City has made extensive and proactive cffosls to communicate with State and Pedestal Legislators, local advocacy groups as well as Minnesota Department of Transportation staff to specifically allocate the required fielding to ensure that the taxpayers of Oak Park Heights do not pay a disproportionate share of the costs for this Regional Project as compared to those who will substantially benefit from if,and, WHEREAS, despite die aforementioned outreach the City has not, as of yet, , identified a funding source to assist with regard to the Project,should it proceed,nor has a funding source been identified by the Department of Transportation or other agencies and entities supporting al the Project that would alleviate the need for the City's taxpayers and rate payers to contribute to the Project for local improvements, utility replacements, right-of-way, acquisitions, signalisation, stormwntcr,pxmding,trails and/or related improvements and maintenance,and, Wli.EEREAS,the City previously did a study through the office of its Auditor,which is,in need of updating,and, WHEREAS,it is-in the best interest of the residents of the City of Oak Park Heights to plan and understand the impacts of this project and the potential casts that would be metaled therewith should the Project proceed and to look at internal funding sources and impacts within the city should the Project be allowed. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights that the office of the City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to incur consulting expenses for prepattition of contingency plans mid studies with regard to anticipating costs that the City would be asked to share in,and to project funding sources and scenarios within the city which would have to bear those core costs and how they could be financed,should the River Crossing Project be allowed to pmmced. Passed by the City Council for tin sty of Oa P rk Heights this 'day of June,2011. /', "4.{t(;-At et,t flyer /4 1(:-.t. .71: • I.leI .on City d tbtistator • SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 6 of 36 :. ... .;:. .. • . . . " • .:.. . . , .. . . . . . . „ , ... ,...„.. . ... .... : ...... , • • ... . , „ . . • , , . ... „ . . . . • , •• • . . .. • ' • . . . • , . • , • .. . , . . . . . . . . . • • • •• „ . S::::::-:...::. ...„ ... , . . ... . . ... ..... . . ....: ..., . • „„ .. . . : , : : . .. . .. . ...... .... ... " " ' • .. .. „ , •• • • "• • • .... „ . .. . :: , '......... ..., . . : .......,.., •• .- ... . .. . . , . . - " • ""' ' • . . . ....„ , .„ „ „ , . .-.... „.. . :•. r. „•:,..:.: , •.. „........,..„ .. ....,.. . „ . :::::.....„ „..„.:„.. :: ..,.„......,..:::....::.... . . • . . . '. . ... „ ::.. :;, „ :.: ,', ";.:.. ,: •, .::::,..., ' • . . . . • • . ,„ .. . ••.•. , ••:.s..:..„.'I..-::.„%....•,'... • .„, ." : .. , • ," : .... .., . ..,:.,:-........: .. Section:.•::3:.:.:.,"‘'...:%.. :...,.„.,:. : .. : :. . . . % " . • . , . , • . ,, . , „.:., ,. ..•.: . . : . ... s.'..',.,1.::'„.;.::,:,::.:.:..:-...,.::.:„.•:...,.:....,.. '•., : ,::::•:::. , :. :.' , . ::. :SP: 1.. .,1:0.:rY of Total 1 :.., •:-:1:s......!./.-.:. - 1...::?:...:..:!.....ate :::'...:-...:. os•: :......„::.::.-•.:.::::::.::::-::::.::..::..::::::„::.::::.:'':..:..„::::.••........1..::.1.....:••... .1: • , , . .......„,:::..„.....„:::::„ ....:„....:. : , ..:.,:,-. ...:::• . : :: ,... :..... • . , „....... ,„,:::::: ,., ,, . . . . , : „ ..: , „:, ...,.:. : ,:::.:„ ::,..,..:.,..•...:. •,„,.. ..„, : : . .::......„.....:.„,..............., ...,:,.„•, .. ., , , . , . .: , , , . ....., .. . s. . ........, ,,.:,,.„, ,...,.... ....„. ,..„: .::.,......., ::.::,, • • .„.•.. , : . ., . . .. :. . . . . . :., ..: , , . . ,., ..:::,,,,.: , : . .. .:.: . '''''''''''''''""'''''::'.... .• :: . ..:•-, - ..: : : : : :, ...,„:„:::. ....:.,,,, „,.....:,........,.,„,, ., ... ,,.. ... . ......:,.. ., .,......... . , , . ,. " : , ...• , :, „.: , . ., •• : , ,. :. •••••• , •, . : . •• • • • . . . . • .• „ •, : . .. .,• ••. ••• . , .. •... ...:„,••••,,,,, , : ... , . • , .. :. : , , ,, , :: : ......... , ,: , . •. :,, .....: ,,. : . . ,... ., .;..„,::.... :.: ....„:::„..::„, .....:. " . , „, ., .: . • . • • . , , . • .:: :... : :,•... • .: ::., ..•"..,.. ..,,..,.:.: .... ............, ... . , •••• ••,..„ ..:.• „..,....., .r „ . . . . , ,.. ..,„. , s . , , . , .... .. „...... ... ..:. ,.. ..: . .. . " . . . ......., :.:,: :,::::.:..: .. .:.:::: . „ :,. ,... ..., . : 0.:•.,.'•::::::•:1 ;• $ ...:::::::,'.:1'::.::,.::::.':..i:::::';::::,J..::.:...-...;:::1.......::::: : ,:':-. ''•::::•••••::?.........:::: ' .: : '....'..:::::::',....2.:.....:.::. : ..•.: : : ' : : :, : •• -• :.•:—....::::: :, ....'.„.:•:.....::::::::::.•:::::::::::••':::•:::';'::.....;:.::'...;::::::.;::;:;:,..;.::::::::':•,..::::::::.-1':::::::::::::;::::i::::::•::::::::,:k::::',......,:.i.,..-.!:.Y..........• •,,,,,,, •,,,,,,,,,, „ . "• : •.s, •• , ,....,,...,,,,:,:.,„,:,,„„.•.:...,,:......,..,„. , ,. :..„,..... ..•,.. % , .., . ., ••,.,„,•,.• ... :,,,,,...„,.. ,..„.„,-...•••,,......—„:„...,„:,..... ,..,,,,,... ......,...• • —„,,,.. .:•.: , .: ., .:,:•:.••. ••••,,,.. • ., .., —•••.•.., ,,,...,.„ ,,,,•• , , .. . ., ,,...,,, , , ...,,.,..„......:.: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,....., :•,•••,::::,•,,•.,, ::.•'• : •.., .• .... ,..... ::,:„•,.....,.,,,,,••••,,,••:., ,...•••••• , •::,:".-:. • ,.• • • ,..•..,,,..• ....,:: .:•••,„....:„,......•„:„..::::•„:,„•,.:,,..,,•..,,,..,.„.,.,.,:,.;..,,,,,,,,.:,....., .. . . , •,...... . ..,....: • .•••.., , . • .• ,. . .• ". . ,.. .„ • . : •••,: . • :: • • . • . , • • :, . ::. ,•.,••..:•.:. •• :,, •." . •• ••••••••••••••• .. .,. . .. •• - : ••• . .• . ... : . . . • . . . .,.. • •,.., :•••.. •:. :.: „ . ,.:••• •:••••• .....,,. .... •• • : . • . . . • . , ••, • • • •••• • ,::...,•.... : .:::•:.:„..:::... ,:. .: •—• ,.. "•••••••••• " ... • . ., ... . • ..• , .• . •• . ••• ..„ .. , .•.. • . .• •..... •• .. • :.::,.• , ••••••••,,, • . „••,:. ....••,,,.„:,,: : .,...s... 0.:1:-•,.......::::‘,......,..........:.....;:::::::::'••••••.:•.,::::•,..:::• ....::::.i......%:',.......:.••••••••::.••:::....',...................,-...............,:'.::::.........; :•::::::.:....:-.....:,..„..:..%.::-...........•..:....., -•:..,..-.::•::::::•!.....,.....•:.:i:.•••••....:•:::::,...........;.'......::,.........::.....:,..:',......,:....:.:.;:::-::•.:,.....:•:...!.:..,...,;•.:•;:i.....:‘•••••.•:y.,...:•:. . i...4:000:::„:.:•:',....f:::::;c:•••••1:::::::.:•......:::.:::-•,.:.:.• •::,.::•,...:::,:::::,..••,..:•::::,::-.::::.,:-.:::••::,....:.?::::•:.:s:::::::::,.:::::.....:.....•'".. .‘•OtoicithOCityof Cott Park Heights...-. . • ••• ..... .... ...:„... ,,. „.... ..... ...... ..... . . .. . " • " "" " • . ......,..• .. ..-. .• •• .. ., . . .••.••••: :. ••••• •- . • .•• • • • • • .,... ......... .. . . ..... .. .... ........ ...... ..•• . •:..•. •. •• • .•. • . - •• •• • • , : •.: •;•..•••••••:••••.:••::•• •.:.•,-••••••. • .• •.: •• .:• -. ••• • . • , • --. : . •. • •: .. • • .„.......:1:: ••::.•••:::. :.-. •:.......:. .;:. . ... • • ••• - ...- • 1.• ••••:: -:.••::: :••••••:.•.• •.•:•,••,•••;..:•„•:.•. . : ...:—..••••••••••••••:: :•:•• •••• • Q o (c a v m ^ + tl v rn tct 01 40 01 O~ '0 M tip 15. ° o n m h G'a c m m � N m W ini us I.1 ifi w cri 5 d c '�'= to V? GS. V? 4.4 iA V1 t4 in VY y ■Pr ° ° e 4 Ol g N v co 'o° N m M 0 b V w a- fi w i'g C N M � 8 'V ri c OG M a 1. Y3 Ce� o .EA LJ V!� , V7 Mf t? V/ L} N to . 'V}' �'4.4 N 1p M h QC' M Ora t 8 .. M:i N m 14 t.:::: b Q V O OMl p�f +� C O O , CO eel s,'0 N tl S f: m d tai. s - . N.l0 M '� ,45 N m -+ O M' V1 4 C!' d y v LE w lf1 2 s a a. 40 0 L V ' N ?�ss in N G VR Vf LT Uf in to N 16 '�' ygg :Y pp h h ° 0 h (p� W. m dt 'V m x :'�— M 8 61 O� Q O st O 01 01 co co 4 G� fn • S la - W N M •t: ° n tD Co N V �` o C C .-i K• N I~ �' m .ro N .a�� MI u F J8 o • c fit O a ka U If ««a�) 4q U _ Nl N to in 4T i? t/) N {/� GS '(�). �y tt.�y g To «L. _ �Wi '� 't In 8 b U 1'A l"1 .c E' in RI in y a (C �bpq S3 6 y g � 9 g VI w P .S m 5 V r I-. b N_ a N p ' ma 0 C O M me' v fq t~ A E W et) O O (A t 0 Ji in U Ti `" a> ZecIP 1.4 a l ``888 .5 a( N ♦+ p V N co O 4- O C G O a� g .� .r O W b 04 4. o ua III c� tit-. h a. a, a, A c SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights • Page 8 of 36 O.: :::::: : : '.. . : , , 1 : ::-::-....... ...,.........: ::: :. : i.',.,.....i.. ...:'::::'..,..,•-;:::::::'.....':', ...:...::::',,:::.':1:::: ::: :' :-... " .. " ,, ...... .. : " Section,:, ,,„ . .. ... „. ...... . „ • . „....:: : ... . .. : '. ,4-::: :. .. .. -,. .. costBreakdowns & Estimates:. -.., .....::: ::...u.,:-.....:...0,,....44.‘:.:-o:', .:.. ...,on-Ft I,.... c'., , :,:..!..,..,:, I pact O"srf'StSolk..:','11iVel.'..i,...:'::..13ititl,....g0,..':'1'Rrpj.ecl,::-......,.......'.. ........... ‘, s.-.,,,2,... .,..."":..,„::.•„..„....:::...::::::..,....:::.:•.....-i.E...........::-..th...::....: . *.::::::::-....... HtaTauigre'''.....s: It11.. ....0'.'d, 10,,.:6t.,Ii:: :::: - 1N1py...";::8,:.:,..,;','„............:?,..F4 :::::,...... • , : , , . .: , .. :, ,: .: :: :,, :::::, , ,.: :, :, % :, .... .,: : : : .: : : •::: ..... ......,:. ,. : :: :: : .. ..,,,„ :.....:: ... :...-..., .. : , . , . . .. .... ....• . ”: , : , . .... " . " : • " " ' '' : • ' ' : '' " ' ' '''' ' : ' ' ' `.. • : ' • ' : ', : ; ,,, :, , : ' ::. ....." ',....'" " ' : : " :: • ; ' "c" : '• ; : , , : " ' • ': , ; .%, l.,; ::: : ',.. ......... : ' ',, , ,.. ...::.:: • '',.; :" '..,.... ;'; ' : .' ... ''' :... ''' ''''''''''...':, ' .... ::.:: ::' ::::: 1". , ::: :,',. :•,.: : %. •:, %" ■ ■ . ""• ', , %, : %: %, %, l:,...,, •,% ,,,,,,, :%:, ,: % : ,, '... , :,•, . %,,,,:, ,,,1 i..:,,,,,,, ..,•,, .X,,,Z, . ,,,....,:, ,, %,,,....: . ,S,.. , , : •:,, . ,,, %, ''''..''.-; ,,,,,,,::., , , , , . ,, : ..:‘,..: , • % , • • .,,... , ,,, ,,,,, ,„;,,, ...., . 1., . ,,, ,, %, %:,,,:,,: , I : :,—. % ,. . . ...:. .....:„ , -. •.„ ,, ..• .. . : . , : .. • : : , • ..: ..„•... „... , , .1„, ...::..... , „i : ,„ ' :: , ' '' , : :.' - ' ' , .: ;': : ': , . :... .; ...,,.....•::. ...;„ ,...,,,„, ,...,,,,„ „...... „.. ,,, „, ,...:„,:.:,„,::„ „.. „..,„:,, ,„,,......, „ „., .... , %, . , . , , • „, ,: , , , --, .•, .., . .. . ,..:,,,,,,..` :,:—... .. ` • • • , , , .. .. ., ... : : , : .., ..: ,, .. ,..: ..:: : ..„„,:,....„,,,, ...„,,,„,„ „, , , :, „:.., .....:,:::: ,....:^......., ",,,,. , ....• ... •.. 411,:':,':::3'...:..."-",:::%;',:.....,.V....?..:?.....':;:::`,:.:':::',..;;..;::::J;:::.i:;; :.)•:."..`!...,'::::::::::.**!. ...:....:.::::,;`:::.11:;.......?.&;::..::::g.:,..".';::'::::::;;::';::::,..„....".....;::::::;:: .... ...:. .. ::.::;:!.&::;;:lki;::::::.:":::;;■:::::;::;;;:::"...":..1:::.....!:::..f.: 1?#0P.:f .R.::::.::'......:::::;';:::::::::/::::':::::::::::::.."::' i ."` Estimated Cost" • , ,••••:::, ......„ %,:: :•:.: ::.:::•••• , ••,...-.: :, .. • ... :: : : ::: ,.. %::: .• -...,:::: : : : ,• ::••••• : .-., : • •. „ , % • • •::: .: : .: :•.::,:::: .:: ‘: : :.:. :: ;:: • 11LDTAUT REDP , . certified d GES bl PuicAccATHountants LTD November 8,2011 To The norable Mayor and Members Ho of the City Council City of Oak Park Heights,Minnesota Re: Update on Financial Impact of St.Croix River Bridge Project Pursuant to your request,we have updated a previous report prepared by our office regarding the financial impact of the State(MN DOT)construction projects for the new St.Croix River Bridge and planned improvements to State Highway 36. The State construction project financially impacts the City of Oak.Park Heights in the following three ways: • 1) Loss of tax base due to parcels previously taken 2) Loss of tax base due to the acquisition of property for utility easement purposes 3) Utility relocation costs Loss of Tax Base due to Parcels Previously Taken Our 1995 report identified 98 parcels taken off the City's tax roli,due to MN DOT acquisitions. A summary is as follows: Percentage of Percentage of Total Total Total Market Market Tax Tax Value Value Capacity Capacity Property taken based on 1995 Plan $4,890,000 2.4% $69,300 1.1% The above amounts are based on the City's 1994/95 Total Market Value and Tax Capacity. 6 1.426.7000 651.426.5004 fax www.hibtr.com • • 4$1:0 White Bear Parkway White Bear Lake,MN 55.7.0 S u s� Qcl teR CPs�1P6rthet ity ofr6SI Far CH�OliOwned Page 10 of 36 sl - NLIt Trulges R.Jpalh.Ltd,is s member of}11,8 IntamRtionrl,r arorld•wide network of independent accounting 1lrms and business advisors. 0 City of Oak Park Heights November 8,2011 Page 2 The City has estimated that,based on a 5%annual Market Value growth rate, the 2010/2011 Market Value for these parcels would be$7,585,995. Assuming that the Tax Capacity for these parcels grew at the same rate as the Market Value,the City has lost$1,624,197 of Tax Capacity relating to those parcels from 1995-2011 as shown below: Total Market Tax Year Value Capacity 1994/1995 $4,890,000 $69,300 1995/1996°) 5,134,500 72,765 1996/1997°) 5,391,225 76,403 1997/1998(1) 5,660,786 80,223 1998/1999° 5,943,826 84,235 1999/2000(1) 6,241,017 88,446 • 2000/2001°) 6,553,068 92,569 2001/2002t') 6,880,721 97,512 2002/20030) 7,224,757 102,388 2003/2004(') 7,585,995 107,507 2004/2005(1) 7,585,995 107,507 2005/2006(2) 7,585,995 107,507 2006/2007t2> 7,585,995 107,507 2007/2008(2) 7,585,995 107,507 2008/2009(2) 7,585,995 107,507 2009/2010(2) 7,585,995 107,507 2010/2011(2) 7,585,995 107,507 Total $1,624,197 . (')i?stirnated based on a 5%annual Market Value growth rate„ t2lEstirnated based on no growth in Market Value. The impact of reduced tax capacity(tax base)is that the City property tax levy is spread over fewer parcels,thus increasing the property tax of the remaining parcels. Amp,-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 11 of 36 • City of Oak Park Heights November 8,2011 Page 3 • Loss of Tax Base Due to Utility Easement Acquisition of Property As stated above,our 1995 report identified 98 parcels affected by this project. If the Project will require the acquisition of utility easements,there will be a reduction in market value of the affected properties. The City's engineer has estimated an easement acquisition will affect fifty- three parcels and that a width of thirty feet is needed for easement purposes. The lineal feet of the fifty-three parcels affected total 8,580. This results in 257,400 square feet of utility easement acquisition. The City hired an appraisal firm to determine an estimated loss of market value resulting from the acquisition of a 30 foot wide utility easement. The appraisal firm selected six properties to review. The appraiser's report estimated the reduction in market value due to the utility casements to be in the range of$1.50 to$5.60 per square foot. Based on the above information,the estimated loss in tax base is calculated as follows: • • $8,580 Lineal feet of utility easement needed x 30 Width of utility easement 257,400 Total square feet of utility easement to be acquired x 4.00 Estimate value per square foot $1,029,600 Estimate reduction in market value tax base related to utility easement acquisition This results in a loss of.Market Value and Tax Capacity for the City of Oak Park Heights. A summary of the impact is as follows: Total Market Tax Value Capacity Reduction due to utility easement acquisition $1,029,600 $20,592 Total for City(payable 2011) $669,938,700 $10,427,300 Percentage to be taken 0.15% 0.19% • III S ttj,r Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 12 of 36 • City of Oak Park Heights November 8,2011 Page 4 Utility Relocation Costs The City's engineer issued a report on utility relocation costs dated September 9,2011. The report outlined the design differences between the City Engineer's relocation study and the current Mt Dot design. The most significant difference between the two is the relocation of utilities lying between Oakgreen Avenue and.Osgood Avenue. The current MnDot design does not include replacement of utilities lying between.Oakgreen Avenue and Osgood Avenue. The attached Appendix A outlines four construction scenarios of the utility relocation project. Each scenario includes an estimated cost split between the City and MnDot. There are several potential hnfuicing options for the City portion of the project costs. if bonds are to he issuedfor the City's portion of the project. The debt service could be repaid by: a) Special assessments. b) Property tax levy. • c) Water and sewer user charges. d) Combination of a),b)and c). The attached Appendix A includes an estimated impact on property taxes and utility rates for each scenario. • 411 Sh,t Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 13 of 36 • City of Oak Park Heights • r g November 8,2011 Page 5 The calculation of the tax levy impact for scenario 1 is: 2011 With 2011 Add'ILevy 2011 City tax levy $3,964,704 $3,964,704 Additional levy(scenario 1) - 94,400 Total tax levy 3,964,704 4,059,104 Less fiscal disparity distribution (2221950) (222,950) Net tax levy 3,741,754 3,836,154 Divided by tax capacity y 8,309,844 8,309,844 Equals tax rate 45.028% 46.164% Market value of home $250,000 $250,000 Times tax capacity rate x 1.000% x 1.000% Equals tax capacity 2,500 2,500 Times City tax rate x 45.028% x 46.164% • Equals City tax $1,125.70 $1,154.10 Tax increase $28.00 Respectfully submitted, • HL13 TAUTGES REDPATII,LTD. i • David J.Mol,CPA Partner D.1M:cic 411 1578011.1 SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 14 of 36 ■ • Q m QQ R Z... tit Si v J r 8, -PO- N `- M 0. Q Y C d t9 (9� ttYY - .- O Y M v�y a 8 O Of � 'Ts CE '�i �� V I � :NI O M N �p r�'C C i aD 1� N M M N k ' y N N N y N C c W G G y r �jjj N IWNj (p�� `�y O :8..2 V L T4 II T-1 O § :.,,,�yy as 1-) M 4:-. M 1 ;�. tai c:.,3., y Qon ppo pN� O U v _ C ` N P N O , . tV fl 2.. 'K f0 p O ry :7 -.-. _.e -1 : C/ f?(, C.C y. y V I /i w N lq 'SF. - t C .& z O IP E 'I E $ tl 8 m .P 7 d C O l,D V; Y) W �+ • V nt W n ^ A N N N• y C. N }� V Y d (� .c�+ryf 1M� IS 6. { {f N M tl y • O ly+ m 4.- ! a 8 to n g Lev co ? y N 9 w �`1.C.F d �, M OI 1� v eMF^3 s ,Vyfiil'f �J R rt n �j pq C W � L �p QQ qq�� gi Q Ip t0 V A E O i4 % ra -QU .x 4 N N y t.. . I » y d . ^�, a .2 w ,a g C ry C 4 N .s p •- • N N V C h o ri k s 0.a..A S. D • a XP V ,r • q 3 ° 1I ' °N' Y 4 d a a O 7 M ttii�� $ g'a T Yj O R 0 p 5 }= �" b¢� �y' '.°QggJ myyy{ C L �pg'a'a{{ O y V a 11• -ac Q g S :.' n {ta' W ° Page 15 of 36 v SCRGP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights • • ' - . . • . . • • • • • • .•.,;...-..........•. ••• •. •, • •••. •... • •...,••. •.••. •• ..•• ,• •;., •. . . . ... , . • " • ' " ' " • ' '• ... . •.. • • . . . •• .... ..• . , ... -... ..•'.: •• ,., •• • . •.• • . . .. . . . .. . ... ••-. ••• •,••:•••• • •• ••• :. .•••, .•. ..••. . • .. . . . .. .. . .. . , , . . . ' '- •"- " - " ' '' " "••• ' •'•• • ' ' - ' .•''"•"•' ' • '" . ' - — ' •• - ' • .. . .. . .. . .. . ... . . . . . . . .. . ... ... . .... .. . .. ...,. .. . , . . . . , . . . . ,. . . .. . . . . . . .. -. .. ..'. . , . . .•..... .. ..,.. .. .. . . . . . . . . .,. .... . .. ,... ...... . . . .. . .. • .,.. .. . .. .. ... . . .. . .. . . . . .. ,........... .. . . ... . . .. • • • •• • . . .. •. . . . . . • • ' " ' • . . . ..........,•::::::•:,•:..-.:.:::-...:•:...,....-s'....,:::•••••••......r:......:',.......,:...,,,•:,•• •••••••,, :••••••:•••••••••::::.:'••••••••••:;•••!•;.,,;...,,:•••,.....:',... ..•••.....:::.ns.'...;.::::.....•••••••—••• • ;. ."...• •••• : :. .....:...-...i......:::•.,. ...•••••.,'..5ectron 5 •.... . ...••• • .. .. • • .• — • • .• •.•••••• . • • . , • ,.....:......,.....:......,•••• . :.. :.... .. .....-s• • • • •...:.::.::::::.:..,.:..•.,.::::,....:,:...:•::::....:..,.iss,:.....::...:•..:..:..••.;,:i.,.:;. s,..„.............. Cost:Egti Ma teS4'Sto-T. m Wat•er- P O i din....g,,;.,. Trails, • ' . •• • .• - • s„, ' • • - ..:-... •. - • .......' .--. • --:-. ... : -.... .-....-- ...-..,..:::::•.....,:.s•:,:,:?:,.....,::::...:,,:,,.:::::...:•::•••,,...:::„.:•••••••.:.....:••••:•••„::.....„,:s....,:.::....:,....,:.:...:..:•••:...,„:::•......,..,:.:::....:::::„S.. .. n.2. 1 '..''...ti..ifi Frontage':R' .b a."d ss: ... . •.:' ‘. . .. •s- .• :...... ....ss ,• .,•.„....• •..,•.. ... .. . . •• • .••••• .•. .. ... :.,:......:,..::,.„.„........,„.„.•,........:...:-:...:4::::::„...:::....,.::•.::..... ....::„..-.,,,,,,s:...:,.....:.,:.is........,...::•.....::.,..:;••••:,,.....,:::::::::„."........,..:,;:•::,,,i.:::,.........R.s::::....,....,..s...:,.:„,............:.,.,„,.,..,,.....::,....:.•:,.•.,:,...::::::...,:..,....:.,..,.,....:.••••,,:....,.-.:............,................••.:. ..-.....•:s. s„ , :,.....................,:s,,......:..... ...„:„.,,..:,;....,...:::,:::......„.::.::•;,. .,....1:-..:.••••,,,,..•::,,.,..„:„,.....:::::.:„...s.:s......•••i..,..:•..:ss......•-•::,.,....,..:s:::,...:•:,.....:.:,,.....,,,:.,..,:,::,:..,:::,i..,:::,::::::!.:••••••••••••:,.-....::: ::::::::-.....,..:::.....-...,::_,.....,..,:s.........:,...,::„..,.....:,.:•••••••••••:•....i.s.•:.........-.:.::::•......,.. s: :........... ••, :,...• .....,....s:,•:is:•:,:s.,..s, •••• • ..• ••„... . •.. ...••••,..•••••..• • •••••.,•, •..... •• • _ _ ,•••,...•••••••• . . .• .. . •.•• • •• • . • : .• •...•,. • ... • .. •• •• • ••••••• • ••,• ••••• •... _ .... .... .. ....... . . . ,. .,.... ... .... ....... ... . .... .. .. .. . .. . . .. ... ...... . .. . . .. , ...•,....... •••• ....... , . .. .... . .. . .. ... ...... ... ... ...... „. .... . ,... . ... . . . . . .. .... ..... . . .. . .. .. ....... .. . ..... _ .... .. ..... ........... . .....,.. .. .... . .......... . ..... . .... ...... ..... . . .., . . .. , .. . . .. . . . ... . . . . . ... . . ••• ... _ ...,., .. ,... ... .....•......••, ••... . ........... .... ..•••••• ......•_••••• . . . •• •. .•••••, • . • ••• • . ••:,•• •• • ••• •• • • • • ••• . •• • • , . .. .,....... . . ......... .... ....... ....... ....... ... ......... .........: .,..................:..... ......„.. ...... . ...... . ..... .. .,. . . .. . .. .. ... . ,. . . . . .... ... . . . , . .. .... . ...•. . ..• ..• ...: .„.•.,..,.••••••......•..,...,...•••„•,.....:.......••,..•. ••• •••• . ...,...............•...„.•.•...„..••••••„...„.•...., ..........•........ .....‘ ......... ..... ......................., .................:...,.... ...,...........,.......... , • . , . ••• ::.::„..„.,....„:„....:;„:.:.;......„:„.....,.,,„t:„„,:::..,„:„:,:„.„.„.,„:„„..„.,.:•,.,: ....„:„. ..„...:„... ..„.„:„„„,„:„..,:::•„„:„.,,,...„,..v..,,,::„..„,,,,,,..„::::„.„:„.„:„.„:„::::.;::::..„:.„..„:„..„:„.,:„.,,,,,„:„.„..:•,.:::::„.„..h.,:.. .,..„:„:„.:,:,:„.•,..„.•.„,„:„.,:,::::„.:...„„.,,,,.:::.,,,,:::::::,..„.„...:..:...„.:„:„.......,:,......::.,..,.::::.::::.„:„.,,,....,,,..,v,,..„:„..,::::::::::::••••:.,:s.:.::..: , ....„.:„:„...„•••„?.:.:::::,.:_-:,•::•::::„....„.:,.„„,e.:..,.,::::.,„:„,,:„.,..„.,,s1. .,.::„:...,:,,,...•:„...:.:....„.•,:,::„.„,...:::•..,,,,„:„.:::„.„,.:.„.,...A., ,,,,,y,:•,!.3„,.,,,,,,::: -,....: ...,..,,,s.:::,,:s.,:,.:•%,.::,.„,i.,.:•„:.,::......„,„:„,„:::,:„.:::::„..:::,...,..,„..„..:::•:,.,.....„:•....:.,..,..:.:..".:..„.,..::,.:,..:.:,.:,...,.....„:,„:..„:„...„...,•„:„..,....... ,..,.k,...,„:::„.•:„:„...i..,03.,,...!„,$:,,....:.:„;...,...„,.: .:.. .,:...„,„:::::::„.-:,,, ., :::,:.,„.::: ::,:s..,:..„,„„:„:::•:,.:3.•,:.:::,-.::„.,,,,:•::::•:.::„:„„:3;:::::„... .::::::.,?..„.„,::::„.„.,..51„:„.„..„.,,,i••••:,,...„,,:„.... ::: ,„!...:.,::..:„?..,, :„..„...„,„.„•:•„:„...„,.„::::,...„:,...,,,::::,:::,::::,::.,...-.„:::,•:„:„.„.:::::.::::::::.,...„..,:•,„.::,..,..,:,:.,,„:„,,,..-::::,..4.„,.,..„.„...:3:::::::::v..:„:„.:::.„:„:„.:•::.:::.,, • ,si:s,:::::,..:1:•::::•2-„•::.::::::::,,....,:-.,2f,...•....,.:::::::.:::::.......„„•,,,....,.•.:::,•.:::::„.,,,,..::::„::,,...„,,,:::::::,.:::::;.:::.,,.::,s,„:„.„,-,,......„:•:.,..„..:,..,..,..:„..:,•.::•:.•:,:,,,T::::,.:.,•,..,::::.:,:..„.•:,.::::.:....,::.....i.:•:,.:„.:,.,:s.„:1,:::.:s..•:.:,...,::::•„,,,,,,,.„.)•:,,i„,,,,...:....,:•;;,::„..,........„.:•:.,....,,.::::••••:„.•,..::::•...:::.?„.„..,:,..,s,:::„....::.:::.:::•..„:::.:.:::::.,:..,:::„..,.,:::..,.:::::::.,.„...„,.....,„ .....•,.. ...,•..•....•...••••••...•,.......„.,................ ...,.,........ .....,. .....„:„..„.........„,..,..,...„.....,...„:.„,...,.•.......•...„.. ,.•.„.......•,,,••• , ....„...,......,.....„......,„........... ...,..... ..... ..... ... ......,.....,..............„,,......„.„,.. . k,,,,:„..:::„.,:::.„.:,,........1.:::.::...s?........::::: :::,„..:::,::..,,,..:‘c„...,:.„.....,:.,......:..:;:.,.... „..:,:,..:;,.;:,..,...,,,,,.:::::.::,„.„,..,...,,,.„,.f.:•••,.....,.„„.::.:::„:„:„::.::::::::::„.....,::::.•,.,,,..:.,:,,,.:::„.„.....,:.,::::•,...:•:::,,,,,,::.„.::.....,,,,....,•••;,....:........:..s..::,.:.,:..........••••....,....,......:...„.......:.:,..„„,x,„,„.,,..„:: ....,.. - ---.- ss••••••••••••• • -..,...........•••....• ,••• •••••• ..•••••••••••• .....,.......„...:.....,. ,..,..,._ s. . .:. ....... ....., .. ....••••• .:. ...... . . . ... , • . • • .• •• • .........• . --- •-• „-,•••••.. ‘.•••••••,•,•..• ••.•••• •• ••.•...•.. .,.• .,..... ...,... ..,.....,........•..... • ...•• ..•,, . .. •....,....... . .. ,,...,•.. ••• . , . .... . . ...., ••• .•••.... ......,..., „.. .. ,SCRCP,,Estimated.Costilmpacts:toihe,elly:otOaft,Park+teights--v,c,':,•,,,,:-,•,...‘A.........w,,y-::,,,,,,,,,;,,,:-.,A,,,,,,,,.,,,, 0 ...; of;,..,...:.,1',;...7,:•:;::-.....:S.•:•.....: 4::•': .....,...„;:,..:,i.,,.,..;,...;•:;.::,•;.i.,...-:?..:`,...::::::::.;":;...,;.::.i....!:.i.'ff,...'...0;..:..,......3•:,.:;.!::.....:-:::::::..'•.....-......,...,....„•:. .....:.,.......:.....,.....,:•,.,:-.,....;: :::.F.,,,....i.1:,..:s.::::-.'3•;-.,..,....,1:::":. .::-.'.•',..:•••:%:••::,.,..;:•:•.••:... !i.•••::::;'.'i•Vg'1:,. ..• ';';'.:,!:;•;::,,,Af.,::::::•:•.'..;‘.j:::::4::?::•:F4:.'4:,aSw'.1v:vi.-wr''i.',::':'In',•,..'i'?"'sir,'•,'',''';',',"•`• 1 • i O 1c7; 1.6 Op M 71 Oo O OKf O OM1 01 M � w O P N V l0 N -1' M Yl O e W N N E WN• V! IA N M +n N VY 1" U 0 IA 0 U v° . o • 11. N N .a X `m o -o Q0 cr • .m '+ a n t" 0 0 ro R 0 olt N j L `v c X Q i7 y0 2 0� N O N v• A A o c i o l d m Ilo C +M U N a ro 3° X X n 3 U V N c .�•- Q ro d v o E y u n S €_ Lf,M iv N g 011 N d ; K s. X W n E Q or, VI 0 c C^ •°*- E N or M X O Q d • C G p,v m acM V u O p is nto vN 2 0 1 m o °° c r vi °°• a 2 x 3 E °' u Q co C N u O N E M....` I ro O.zc R ou of° c w dd0 O ew to ti C A �+ C C j,W O a C �d wS t W u d NO ap O O O c C * m N 7 3 2 WY 61 U !n m a O H-fl h e av CN 4.3 O I Yg e • tult c c m a to m o a E a d • v w o ii 1110 • a s'er O o L a Q∎.. m To; ni m Q G Q 7 ° o c 2 c a N in ¢ SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 17 of 36 • Rate of Price Inflation--» 4.00% Pond Costs Trail Reconstruction Frontage Roads Year 1(Base year) $ 2,100,000 $ 170,158 $ 1,802,660 Year 2 $ 2,184,000 $ 176,964 $ 1,874,766 Year 3 $ 2,271,360 $ 184,043 $ 1,949,757 Year4 $ 2,362,214 $ 191,405 $ 2,027,747 Year S $ 2,456,703 $ 199,061 $ 2,108,857 Year 6 $ 2,554,971 $ 207,023 $ 2,193,212 Year 7 $ 2,657,170 $ 215,304 $ 2,280,940 Year 8 $ 2,763,457 $ 223,916 $ 2,372,178 Year 9 $ 2,873,995 $ 232,873 $ 2,467,065 Year 10 $ 2,988,955 $ 242,188 $ 2,565,747 Year 11 $ 3,108,513 $ 251,875 $ 2,668,377 Year 12 $ 3,232,854 $ 261,950 $ 2,775,112 • Year 13 $ 3,362,168 $ 272,428 $ 2,886,117 Year 14 $ 3,496,654 $ 283,326 $ 3,001,561 Year 15 $ 3,636,521 $ 294,659 $ 3,121,624 Year 16 $ 3,781,981 $ 306,445 $ 3,246,489 Year 17 $ 3,933,261 $ 318,703 $ 3,376,348 Year 18 $ 4,090,591 $ 331,451 $ 3,511,402 Year 19 $ 4,254,215 $ 344,709 $ 3,651,858 Year 20 $ 4,424,383 $ 358,497 $ 3,797,933 1110 SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 18 of 36 • • .0 c ,',3 ti �~ s . �; .' 4 • II=1i a; t, 4. cu 1.' , tit c: I :1 �� :t •1tC f a-- si i tj til ru M ..,$,. i , 31 fir. tJ 0, r r ui R r� , 1 '},,;• }a r�'yr 1 ' tSFF`I0. A, to r �"k•Y $° .t ,�. 5'�[C a cn.° �anb{,s i� ,i J w �,1F R.S ;'.Y? li t', 't;€•; �`.,res� k*�k�`d''r� •i • aJ ,0-25,4:43,-;' •4; ,._ a v . s tF,"r7 :,,,:i.,,,,-1;4.v.:;. ',y,.f 6 F i. ro s� a., c 73 - . . p ys,O�a -. 7y 112 o ,b:• , Ii. *,.1,4,-?. ...,,,,,,,3 u�t , e r „'L,, ..`i U �� a� l11 4--,:&.) li�� @�I tY y� t �? ,, Y . tj,dx`; C (7 .gill 3' 4 ,1 {" � .f �s. 1+)'�i,` 1 f��~ F°7'13.� '�!f 7. !�'. 10 N y�} of� ''i'2."4' "xt I..{t1Gn§'�rr r4 j `,..,,,,,i,Sp; } ./ .." - A'' �P'? 0Js 0. t o ,ea Vtr" l'',;4r.°,1'.-4";',/.t e� di < [7'.',1',7?.i i (;J; K ,ji J` f S r � t it 1?o .a J:1 , , o f T:, L., f 1q? "1,=.4.1;0,'t cr�—V 1 2 f Y t ��, • ,• C 75 �b , x' r1 F � ,: , t� .,rY � 44�'r tY � s u om y r.4 t. q yq°v �` Xc�t �v'.1fr S kn t c! k i . , [n �, ,0. l3 S ri' L L 0,--I C baA J f ' if bA O ' t4 iX r, /f•rf '' V,t r-`,. R S� 'O J c x t — ` t•v• a , u U i';:...11.,-'r I gypx y ` t ' `s a' �o r `P 1' r ' j` tk U o • Page 19 of 36 SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights • , ! -IT', -i fi.a ' { T'".'1''',' r"" -P �! I , (t � v r K > q k i ;� fi f ''' ' '3 .-L'',/,< 0 i / p LLJ tG� t � ;O� ■ .� i s t `, - p 1ff r ot,„4 t $t t ” t4 Qs Z ' Ii C { . , QIH dl✓V9 li 9s rJ1SH3UrdV >1 r 1 !,> . .Ir,•�t i ' . ,. ■ -. ,-A, ,-,J.,,A,It.,,:: - ,-- - 0,' - 1 , . '.;. ' 4ty- ‘,'-•--4.'. E Lt 4 rt.:t,6S q'' '" itq , Q i�t}�b .� om--�^ `t' F '�a •>C',.,+1'',' �.n t ', v ;; d �,y� } 11 t Ott r l�, a'y` 1 ,),...',-,',1 r R S, N gggg Ss f, �� ' G, ors . a ajt q_ • v b r 3 e.',‘,. %.- ` f rt S -1, :t .r.°4 t t 'R! ° Lh1�t,;rA .z a i- 4--',-. 0 i t , r° . N' W- 3_' y l Y �rY,sp� � `. t Xt t i 0 CC ,,r,'—,','-- ,', w' ,v i ; ' '' >tr k.,4� r"r ;• ,'i'" 2 `, $.��:',, 4 , - A.;.4 .w� y ry`�r...Fi t9,1{Sf�b �'r�+ t 1 �I ', _e:''n '�'l':, ,t'i,..4., 'i !?:�i� 4F'11 1-ei.4 d�c t4.4; 7.1 i t}If i h+r. f t • F .`5 ..4 p •., 5 ,dS', X ? r�Jy. ��; ifi i;'11 ;t ., 5 , ',, ;', 'r.} ,r 1+,,4,f.; t f' ', ' ! •'t'Y<! - , r t 'y',ww F� ,.5 ¢ r A: �1 't i ... 0 7 •, ns. r `, rF �' , i i I`;;�1 T ,1 t ' `S t'A ? Ta', , tih �.t ti ir: r �c , try 3" ti��r44 r a ....%, , ,, ' PrY1 4 t� , 4t .t +go.S.'�J rz C ra�� 1A[' tt- �( y q 't (k ' gl/ t Nr,y tt jar r r w(�&H V k r vy; t <<• ', f! Sty , �,$ r .> c d Y r^ dry <�',.-'Jv-A r s ¢9A Pty','-1 ' u ` y O [F �/r C,, `. ��}!� ' �� .. t F-, c.' t �j fop 1 :4., } #4tt i .I4.13,',„;,,,C _t ,., �� t; t I-- r4 r, . £ W,4 '. k. ' r J !t a?f "'''' °rLq tt AV �J V� V,M r t t a O ��, >r t Y •1.1 t,t a} L' l ,}.. 1 t ( . y, r,t l� A 's #i i ,-,, r ? i s 1" r l•, it s ., e t 2 e i1 J(f�'._ .- �tLt t i'-'ir,t' , , t- rt r' ✓` i S q F r�S eta':'f. "Y a `p. 't' .r� , r' F .CCa } '4 ra '' t F1�..5 S. ! ur , 1 10 n ". r ^. t �;,4 �y r r^1/ �� i �� td I-3 1 .1-' A k ire t Y4 1 8 g ..gx,t 1 's, n-� t r'<r r � k ti K p t^S,x 0 1' `� xi . 7 'rl� t i,' ,.`L 1 L r rk I �``' y �'"r;'.r,�i,-.Y. t,,9{t,f_,� �f. 4" RI LLL 5t/, '< G.t t t tf,4 .. } z1.1,-;-t .+i� °d :,...,./,.fit?r ?,'�"j { y. i,— f�+,�"�.t - -,-,, m"a sr l 4 t�.. 4 t VT5 '' tiI 01,4 e rr Win. /,,•(: .tFd4 17 -1 Jr ,t y ,J,1 , 4,3"-• t .,_ C ti v ., , : --t -, /._ ( _`S t / R4a ttth F Y'r +'ro '' 2. Y •i irk L-: n tkt E_;.'S'''f t . . 't'-,, 11 rJ ;� 4,-`,/,"-;4.%'/- ,1',.' t Jl y} --i;i''rtl r' r V , r:, j r i +rte t, �,4 h 6 { � jts LY 9 k t i t •,:-., ' 1° fff°!Y iS rr c 'q12,1.-' F �{-, c$� ,/) Z t. ''..,f,',; ' - tl z F Q ,l, ,,ri KF( .-,.5t:,,!...,;-.?.,',':R a ! t �}- �g'd � g,r� �• • 2 && a i[ ?',l �YY .'s 1 e1 �! Ste\ f1�"` ]t . �^4i f , i . ,..14 Q� t r ,- '' ",' •c lr j - d� - . Ft 'i g J 2 i ' a Y Y 2 i g 1 _1 i J n e)---`-' 4 I l t.1'r ,, ac's',, �t t //s .O : A t. i b & ,u_If g r .•Q "r'\t� �i f3 r '.xt •",-',,,/,,yy t y t( r �� ,� a t f ,'/ 1.5 $ i ;t „ g S r ti •'. -?:.J S n ,0 ` If 'I y,<,•/ J N f ta , r ' s : s ° 11 71 1 ,. y t ti• „,„‘......„,.N.,,,K � , ,: s � S� t � f �ff�ri�tysy77 �nn� ff i , i� 4, • 3 t4 i x ,",,,-;-14 f �®�®�®L:J Il �, .*r 3 �,,.�.�� , 4i E,..1.-"r°4'ff r� �!.1 ,” j l', !Ill , 1‘. s• % 4 ' " -» j ' ( �'a• 0(-` t t m acts_0 the City of Oak P rk Hii r r' t ''a 'EL; y it ;c Ytr`(z,: air- r.v,., ,, .�, i i�l r t s, rl • • Eric Johnson From: Chris Long[Chris.Long©bonestroo.com] Monday, November 07,2011 11:28 AM Eric Johnson Cc: Andrew Kegley Subject: Trail Construction Cost Estimate-5,000'Trail Eric, As requested, I put together some preliminary costs for construction of a 5,000'bituminous trail.Assuming this trail would be along the frontage road of-11-1-36, I roughly estimated 30 pedestrian ramps.These costs do not include engineering, legal,administrative.See the preliminary construction cost estimate below: Trail Section Details Depth of Subgrade Exc./Granular Borrow(inches) 12 Depth of Aggregate Base, CL. 5(inches) 6 Depth of Bituminous(inches) 2 Trail Length(feet) 5,000 Trail Width (feet) 10 Item Unit Mobilization Quantity Unit Price Amount LS 1 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00 Site Grading, incl.common exc. &drainage grading LS 1 $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 Subgrade Excavation,assuming 20%required CY 444 $ 10.00 $ 4,444.44 • Granar , asmig TN 880 $ 7.00 $ 6,160.00 �yregate ul BaseBorrow,CL.5su n , 100%20%Crushed required TN 2200 $ 14.00 $ 30,800.00 ar Course Mixture,Trail TN 639 $ 70.00 $ 44,722.22 Pedestrian Ramp EA 30 $ 1,000.00 Total $ 30,000.00 $136,126.67 Let me know if you need anything else.Thanks! Chris Long,PE Bonestroo, now Stantec Tel 651-604-4808 Cell 651-492-7747 rhrisiot�l�rr„€nrig�p� ttaniec;cc�l» stantec.com Bonestroo has Joined Stantec,a professional services consulting firm recognized for its leadership in sustainability,depth and diversity of talent,and technical expertise. The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied,modified, retransmitted,or used for any purpose except with Stantec's written authorization, If you are not the intended recipient,please delete all copies and notify us immediately. Et Please consider the environment before printing this email, • SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights1 Page 21 of 36 o.1 r! b 0 2 N 0 N ? ? 0 - oo (gyp o N NNC�O� (4NN N ,acv uof `'V o0 I F- ri co -0 iii- IL V in (O NNNNNN " ,N 01 oO p000 ...- to c .-i .-4 .-1 .-i wl .-i M OA .t, ° rog M '4 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 I -@ v d`' 000000 1r� uiJ . J: o Q m U tlJ it o 2 Ti ifk vC N 0ooitf N n9 to e N [CV)In M b. u ,4i y, 6 N 4 !V r-i 0 i 8 $ O a 9 CD c ro y at ro 0 K U Lnb .4-iNNM a ro al � • N its vi 4 N LC s7 o a >' v► u fi z V V .8@ 0 v C h, C C 06 .) °' u o rte C E co' ii 41 .a N U C .0 W (�'1 W CO F' r°» i o O }=- � CC C C -o n & cn i.' z .s= O 4. v- w 0 u 0 U u y an E V G C ▪ '`" M v� C' N l° n% nf6- a v im rnZ a°, o �' 2 Z O o2S d3 o7S o(Zff� E ' j O m LL G C �" O C71 4J w 0) Q3 > V 0 yr N 3 (0 1, p i4 -O cc N (n VJV) a y U. U ul i- YS N a+ �—, O u Sn 'Cf (�� 0i �0i n n +-I m fa i g A U N (7 W N r0 Q1 Au C Co C Q7 v p _ c j . D la $ E (0 01 ..0 v• � 0O i�n � O ` O .1 Coy. 0 M ._ M `O • ...) • 1 c r+g o $i o 8 "" 3 .r+ t. ii ii. it E N '� ' Sxx � � aerg way cow u Eo .. a u' � � �� o ? N � �°. $ E E = L° ro ahi 0 H .coop lL RCP-Estimated Cot Im acts to eCiyo arc ark Height Page 22 of 6m I. • .. -----tio .- - ---- .... - �!. 11 •••.:............. ,....•••••.,.............".. .........„. . •.... •••. ,•.:•••.:.•.•••••.,.•..,•••••••:. ........,..;....:.".......:..„-:.,:••••".. . •...• • .. . : ••... •• „. . • " .. •• ......,.. ........:•• .:•.: •••••••....•..... • ......•,...:............. ....• . ,...„...„•,........„,....s..,..„,:„.... "•••....:•:•....:.•: . .. . • ..„.:•, ..•. .%.:„.... ....... . . . " ...,.,".::............••••......... ..• • ., • • . . %. .. ... ....:..: . , ...... .... .. ..... ... ... .. . .:. ..,..... ... ..,. ..... . . • •••• .... ..% ... . •••• •• •, . .. . • .. .... •. • ••••. . . • • ' • . .. ," :• „. ......... • •• . • .. .........: ....... .. : . ..• • • . s • .. - •. .. -- ....................-.:.:• • •:.... .-..... .: ::A en i p5p . .. ....... ......, .... : .......:..:: RR � .Jj ; . ; a r .. A ° ra is:a 1, .. xe:c:ut^ ve Su -.••• : •: ': �':.::p•.:.. .:.:.; ':::: .. .. . . . : .. r� .... ... ........::::.•••.............-..... ---.......• ..:.. .. ...:.. ,... ... • ‘ . , , , . •'..-..s....-..•.'.•.•.....•....-."..-•• rn�er. 3: 2 ,. te. p.. y:. :.....:.::: 2 i0 7o:st::ES . ::::.;:, ......:.....:. :.......... . a;c�, ....:... ... . ut . es. ...: :. :t `R. 4. r. p:. : s F .:•:......1.....:.."..'..:..:..,...•....'....'.•..'•,• ...:•.•..s...:.:...-:..••...':: • :.. `:Anna. . ::::.........2;.1...:,:::::...,••••: ^ 4. ,. . Stan. ± .. . `. .......... :. . ...: ,.i , y. s � .....:.....:...::::: ..:........:.... ..... :.....:.:: '•".::>.}:�: :::�:::?:;:;did;;.:':'.. '.�" !^:a.;.;l.:::;..:':'.�;*::'.'.`•...`:`::....; .: a`e .0.•... ..:. .. y a : tits:::, k H ::: 5... .. .,.,. .. . ...., of :. :...:. Cat .. .. . a .a... .Gb acs ,..,>... _. a ,...,.. . . . .. .. .. ... ... ...... ..t,.<..::,. ... .... ... .... soma .. ...... ..... . .. ..5 .......,... SCR .... .... ........ ... ............ ...... . ... . . ......:..: I BRKW APPRAISALS , INC , REAL ESTATE VALUATION SERVICES 4- September 7, 2011 I City Of Oak Park Heights ATTN: Eric Johnson City Administrator 14168 Oak Park Boulevard Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 RE: Preliminary Appraisal of 6 Sample Properties (5 Commercial And I Apartment) Minimum Value impact Of 30-Foot Utility Easement Acquisition Highway 36 Utility Relocation --• St. Croix River Crossing Oak Park Heights, Minnesota Dear Mr. Johnson: • In accordance with the request of the City of Oak Park Heights, I am providing you with a preliminary appraisal addressing six sample properties located within the State Highway 36 corridor in Oak Park Heights. This appraisal is presented in a Summary IReport format. It is my understanding that the City of Oak Park Heights is investigating the potential costs associated with relocating existing water and sanitary sewer utilities out of the State Highway 36 right of way, which is controlled by MnDOT. One of the potential costs would be for acquiring 30-foot-wide permanent utility easements along the edges of properties fronting the Highway 36 right of way. The easements would be used to construct new utility lines to replace those in the right of way. The purpose of this preliminary appraisal is to provide, for each of the six subject properties, an opinion of the loss in market value resulting from the acquisition by the City of Oak Park Heights of a 30-foot-wide utility easement. The value opinions are as of September 3, 2011, the date on which the subject properties and neighborhood were viewed by the appraiser. The intended use of the appraisal is to assist City of Oak Park Heights officials in approximating the cost that would be incurred to compensate property owners along Highway 36 for the City's acquisition of a utility easement needed to relocate underground water and sewer utilities out of the State Highway 36 right of way. The intended users are officials of the City of Oak Park Heights, which is the client of the appraisal. ISPRUCE TREE. CENTRE SUITE 314 1600 UNIVERSITY AVE ST PAUL MN 55104 • SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights 651•646.6114 fAx 651.646.8086 br w@ I rkw.com O Page z4 of a Given the preliminary nature of the valuation needs by the City, and the intent of the City to apply the results of this appraisal to numerous properties in the area beyond ii. the six sample properties, the opinions of market value loss are expressed as a range, rather than as single-point values. Furthermore, the opinions of market value loss reflect only the value impact of the actual easement rights acquisition; they do not ii. include the potential impact on site improvements in the acquisition area, nor do they address potential severance damage to the properties as a result of the easement and associated utility construction activity. aGiven the limited scope.of valuation described above, the acquisition of the utility easement rights has the potential to impact only the land component of the subject properties, not the improvements located thereon. Consequently, this appraisal involves the valuation of the only the land components of the properties. Based on my investigation, I have formed the opinion that the subject property land ma IIII values and the impact of the easement acquisition on those land values, as of September 3, 2011, ate as follows: ---------- Summary of Value(?pinions Pertaining;to Area of Proposed Utility Easements Property/Tax Parcel I.D.No. Value/SF Before Easmt. Value/SF After Easmt Value Reduction/SF Due to Easmt. II Low High Low High Low High 1. Oak Park Plaza Retail Center $10.50 $13.50 $6.80 $8.80 $3.70 $4.70 04-029-20-21-0007 3 2. NAPA-Anchored Nlukltenanr Cmcl.Bldg. $10.50 $13.50 $6.80 $8.80 $3.70 $4.70 IN04-029-20-21-0039 3. McDonald's $12.00 $16.00 $7.80 $10.40 $4.20 $5.60 111 04-029-20-12-0(: 9 ® 4. Pizza Hut $12.00 $16.00 $7.80 $10.40 $4.20 $5.60 04-029-20-12-0010 ii5. Office Building $9.00 $12.00 $5.80 $7.80 $3.20 $4.20 04-029-20-1 l-OrY,4 II l � G. =-Build'utsApartment Complex $4.25 $5.75 $2.75 $3.75 $1.50 $2.00 04-029-20-11-0003 IlThis appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation or a specific valuation for approval of a loan. The opinion of market value identified in jthis report was developed independent of any undue influence. The value assumes all real estate taxes and special assessment balances, if any, have II been paid in full. It is a gross value and no allowance was made for brokerage commissions, real estate taxes or other carrying costs associated with the property during the marketing period. No personal property is included in my opinion of 4101 market value. __- BREW APPRAISALS, INC. PAGE 2 ISCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 25 of 36 • • This appraisal report has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) as promulgated by the Appraisal Foundation. The facts and information contained in this report were obtained from sources that are considered to be reliable and are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, but are not guaranteed. This appraisal report is contingent upon the assumptions and limiting conditions included within this report. Your attention is directed to the following report for the supporting data, analyses and conclusions that support the market value opinion. Sincerely, RIW APPRAISALS, Ir. 'Paul J. Col fi on Certified General Real Property Appraiser Minnesota License #4003073 I 111 1 I I I I I I BRKW APPRAISALS, INC PAGE 3 SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 26 of 36 9 • _ _ _it., , R( a' yvy 3 - 11 .. ro z n iTi VII I• 0 :f 0-0 - 1 dill 1 1 1 0 !It IIL _T !I!!IF 111 1 1111 i 1 Ig RIONErtillrill _ i s 1 i _ F i I $ I 1 I,, i I II III 1i I __._. i II _q! 3 1 : i 1 6 1 I l I I� 1 _ I l Itgl1 i il i a1IIl I� I ! 1 _ I : 1 1 4 I e __ r%� :IIiII 1 _ i �L i1I N 1 h Idiii b ll lr I "II IA I I II $110 1$ 1 1 iii i i i� iiliiUM ii ii iii lii ! 11�� lilli1 il�lll `4 .� Q 3 "t' IIIIIIy�$'ix � 11 Cd A l dII1y lI1�llFElilplliliCIINIpAplppl ill Iiiiiiiiiii 111 i &010111II ®gRtl[,;i1 _ i igiihill 1; ydI a Ili �h��tltt�i�� 6 �Y5 @$�'SCC@ :Rtl @#11N9I6d 1 61®GE�i}i @��NY e`'� su' sax ,�� iii t .1 1 iiiiiiIII111-IIKI- 1 1111 ;i II 111.11 P -�� 11 I ' 1 1 r.!'` L ''I1 , 11111 1 f i � 8 i¢ 3 j.l t i:$�s' a �d :t�Zj � + `' ?1 i1 Eiy'�� ;: ;� � �3 d„��• i iii -� �� e pi 135 � �� ' . tit. � �� .' 1'� i � ��,3 � .��j�) b � �� ii�llii� 3 SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 27 of 36 03/28/04 15:20 FAX 651 426 5004 . lip TAUTGE$ REbPATH l 002;a q; •.. ",.., . • HL Tautges Redpath, Ltd. rliglEY Certified Public Accountants and Consultants ZOO (4 SathY INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT "'."" ON APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES To The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Oak Park Heights,Minnesota We have performed the procedures enumerated below,which were agreed to by the City of Oak Park Heights,solely to determine the financial impact of the St. Croix River Bridge Project on the City of Oak Park Heights. This agreed-upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of those parties specified in the report. Consequently,we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose. III. Our procedures and findings are as follows: (()Determine loss of tax base due to parcels previously taken Our previous reports(dated March 6, 1992 and June 2, 1995)identified specific parcels to be affected by this project. This was achieved by using specially prepared half-section maps containing the specific parcels with a"footprint"of the project. Our 1995 report identified 98 parcels taken off the City's tax roll,due to MNDOT acquisitions. A summary is as follows: Total Percentage of Percentage of Market Total Market Tax Total Tax Value Value _ Capacity Capacity Property Taken Based on 1995 Plan $4,890,000 2.4% $69300 1.1% The above amounts are based on the City's 1 994/95 total market value and tax capacity. The City has estimated that,based on a 5%annual market value growth rate,the 2004/2005 market value for these parcels would be$7,585,994. White Beer Lake rice:4810 White Bear Parkway,White Bear Lake,Minnesota 55110,USA Telephone:651 426 7000 Fax:651 426 5004 Hastings Office,1303 South Frontage.floed,Suite 13,Hastings,MN 55033.USA Telephone:651 480 4990 Fax:651 426 5004 III KA Tamps Redpat.LW.is a member of Mil Imenutional.Awoitd•wiee organismion of eeaaunling firms and Nekton shims. SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 28 of 36 09/28/04 15:20 FAX 651 926_5004 „ }]U TAUTGES REDPATIS 1?)003 .......... — ---. ..._ • Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Page 2 Assuming that the tax capacity for these parcels grew at the same rate as the market value,the City has lost$871,648 of tax capacity relating to these parcels from 1 995-2005 as shown below: • Total Market Tax 'year . y r d1Ue fi Catacii . -- $4,890,000 $69,300 1994!]995 8,134,500 72,765 1995!1996 x 3 6,40 1996/1997* 5,391,225 7 76,203 997/1996* 5,660,786 • 84,235 1998/1999'" 5,943,826 88,235 200012001 " 6,241,017 88,466 2001/2002* 6,553,068 92,862 2002/2003* 6,880,721 197,532 2003/2004: 7,224,757 102,388 2004/2005' 7,585,995 �.�--- �, /� $677,64$ Commutative loss of tax capacity 1995-2005 _� ` III *Estimated based on a 5%annual market value growth rate u1 Based on 1994/1995 class rates 2. Detenpine loss of tax base due t' ro a 3d ac a uisition of additio11a1 parcels related to the planned im.rovement to State Hi • The identification of specific parcels to be affected was based on to State maps containing the 36(option specific parcels with a"footprint"the of Cite'sltaxnbasemwa determined using 2004/2005 market P). Additionally,the impact on Y values as provided by the Washington County Auditor's office. As stated above,our 1995 report idelat#fed 98 parcels affected by this project. Based on the planned improvements,an additiona{�}�wPac pari will affectedttivue assumed to be fully taken For purposes of this report,parcels iha,__.,�' from the tax base. • • • SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 29 of 36 09/28/04 15:20 FAX 651 426 5004 119.1} TALITGES REDPATH 0 004 • Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Page 3 The resulting loss in market value and tax capacity for the City of Oak Park Heights is as follows: Market Tax Value Capacity Property to be taken based on 2004 Plan $78,109,600 $1,064,414 � 3 Total for City(payable 2004) 443,955,200 6,445,927 Percentage to be taken 17.594% 16.513% City staff believe the acquisition of land by the state will not significantly affect the City's tax levy amount. However,the City's tax levy would be spread over a reduced tax base, which would increase the City's tax rate. An estimate of the change to the City's tax rate is as follows: Calculation of Estimated Tax Rate 4110 Before State After State Acquisition Acquisition of Property of Property Tax capacity value(payable 2004): Real estate and personal property $6,445,927 $5,360,752 Loss:fiscal disparity contribution (798,048) (472,82 Taxable value for local tax rate $5,647,879 $4,887,931 Net tax levy; Gross tax levy-general $2,054,070 $2,054,070 Less: fiscal disparity distribution (112,203) (112,203) Net tax levy $1,941,867 $1,941,367 Net tax levy $1,941,867 $1,941,867 Divided by taxable value 5,647,879 4,887,931 Tax rate — 34.382% 39.728% SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park • Y ark Heights Page 30 of 36 • 09/28/04 15:21 FAX 651 426 5004 , Hp TALtTGES REOPATII 0005 • Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Page 4 Assuming the tax rates as presented above,a comparison of the City portion of property tax of various properties before and after the acquisition of parcels is as follows: City Portion of Property Tax Before State After State Acquisition Acquisition. Property Type of Property of Property $200,000 residential homestead $688 $795 $250,000 residential homestead 860 993 $500,000 commercial 3,180 3,675 $1,000,000 contntcrcial 6,619 7,648 Note: Amounts are presented before reduction of suite-paid credits. • 3. Determine loss of connection charges on parcel ronosed to be acquired The City has deterthined that 9 of the 200 parcels to be taken have future connection charges attributed to them. Because these properties will not be developed,the City will not collect connection charges on them. A summary of connection charges that would not be collected is as follows: Type of Connection Charges Amount Water connection charges $167,825 Sewer connection charges 96,414 Storm wafer connection charges 212,521 Total connection charges $476,760 4. Determine utility relocation costs Certain parcels being taken will require utilities located within them to be relocated. The cost of the relocation was estimated by the City's engineer and can be found in a separate document prepared by the City engineer. i/o.,: / r,,,,% SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 31 of 36 • 09/28/04 15:21 FAX.651 426 5004 HLB TAUTGES REDPATH e006 • Independent Auditor's Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures Page 5 Closing • The work performed by our firm is considered an"agreed-upon procedures"engagement under AICPA standards. In this type of engagement,our role is to perform procedures designed to determine the financial information requested by the City. The procedures we performed do not constitute an audit on the financial impact of the St. Croix River Bridge Project on the City of Oak Park Heights, Accordingly,we do not express such an opinion. Rather,we verified the financial information based on the procedures we performed. Had we performed additional procedures,other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City of Oak Park Heights and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than those specified parties. September 28,2004 ,t.8 1-4444-40.4t/ 4;61. HLB TAUTOES REDPATkH,1,TD_ • Certified Public Accountants SCRCP-Estimated Cost impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 32 of 36 • 2335 Highway 36 W St.Paul,MN 55113 Tel 651.636.1600 Fax 651-636-1311 www.boneslroo.com Bonestroo September 9,2011 Mr. Eric Johnson City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N. P.O, Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Re: Follow-up to meeting with MnDOT designers on 8/24/11 TH-36 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Relocation(Outside MnDOT R.O.W.) —Mapping and Cost Estimate Completed on 8/17/11 Bonestroo File No: 000055-11175-0 Dear Eric: On August 24,2011,a meeting was held at MnDOT's Waters Edge Building to discuss and compare the relocation study completed by Bonestroo on August 17, 2011,with the most current MnDOT design for the St. Croix River Crossing Project.Attendees included several MnDOT . designers with Todd Clarkowski, along with Chris Long from Bonestroo. The City of Oak Park Heights'sanitary sewer and water main utilities were reviewed along the TH-36 corridor during this meeting.The MnDOT designers provided several maps displaying the existing and proposed sanitary sewer and water main.The Bonestroo study was also provided and discussed. Design Discrepancies The distinct difference between the Bonestroo relocation study and the current MnDOT design was that not all the existing utilities within the MnDOT right of way were shown as being replaced or relocated in MnDOTs current design. Only utilities determined by MnDOT as impacted by the current design were shown as being relocated.The Bonestroo study identified relocating all existing utilities within a proposed City easement outside of MnDOT right of way. Utility betterments were not included in the relocation study.The current MnDOT design does include betterments such as an additional water main crossing through TH-36. Utility betterments will need to be discussed further in the future as there appears to be differences in the location and sizing requirements for the betterments. For the most part, the MnDOT right of way shown on the relocation study was consistent with MnDOTs maps.The only inaccuracy seen was the southern portion of the right of way shown on Figure 6(northeast of Moelter Fly-Ash Site)of the relocation study.Although the right of way line in this location will need to be revised,the relocation study still accurately shows the proposed utilities outside the MnDOT right of way. • SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 33 of 36 Oak Park Heights Page 2 • Follow-up to meeting with MOOT on 8/24/11 9//9/11 MnDOT's Proposed City Utility Relocation Areas The proposed utility relocation areas by MnDOT were fairly consistent with the relocation study east of Osgood Avenue North,but only one relocation area has been determined required by MnDOT to the west. Key details to MnDOT's relocation areas are described below: 1. water main relocation at Oakgreen Avenue North-due to the required ponds for the proposed intersection layout 2. sanitary sewer east of Osgood Avenue North,and north of TH-36-due to elevation changes to highway,the sanitary sewer needs to lowered and relocated with a new crossing 3. water main east of Osgood Avenue North -due to elevation changes to the highway,all water main on the north and south side of TH-36 needs to be relocated 4. sanitary sewer east of Moelter Fly-Ash Site at Beach Road North-redirection of the sewer to the south and east of proposed highway and connection to the MCES interceptor 5. water main loop crossing the proposed highway and connecting to the Sunnyside Marina Area 6. sanitary sewer redirection on Lookout Trail North to the north and east with a connection • to the Sunnyside Marina Area 7. water main relocation near the Beaudet Addition with a new crossing to the Sunnyside Marina Area MnDOT's 2006 Cost Estimate vs.Relocation Study Estimate Following the meeting,MnDOT provided cost estimates on August 29th from a 2006 study.The estimates were briefly reviewed and compared to determine any major deviations. Below shows the significant cost difference for the sanitary sewer and water main relocation: Bonestroo Relocation Study(2011) $ 12,029,800 MnDOTs 2006 Cost Estimate $ 1,766,525 (inflated by MnDOT to 2011) Cost Difference $10,263,275 • SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Page 34 of 36 Page 3 • 9/age 3 Oak Park Heights mee Follow-up to meeting with MOOT on 8/14/11 • The primary difference in costs are duet of construction significant were difference umedhe h quantity of rent unit prices, being relocated.Since different methods "apples to apples", the percentage is enfage of MnDOT was used to determine the costs with the type of construction the percentage of Mn pipe relocation study identified. . *Bonestroo Cost Estimate Bone$troo MnDOT Percent of Donestroo 2011 using MnDOT Quantity MnDOT quantity Quantity Q Pi Cost Estimate T .e of Pi•e lineal feet lineal feet $ 2,139,529 3,310 23% 9,302,300 $ Sanitary Sewer 14,490 $ 2,727,500 $ 927,350 17 150 5_ 7r 9 _-- 34Q/o 3,066,879 Water Main $12,029,800 $ Total Several other factors contributed to the cost difference as well: $35/ft vs,N $575/ft) • different pipe installation methods(open cut vs.tunneling,or N • no removals were considered or shown itemized in the cost est timaemoomst the MnDOT approximately• study(the relocation study identified • water main jacking pipe quantity discrepancy (MnDOT showed 35%difference from relocation study) • the reconnection to sanitary sewer and water services ws $200,000 completed in the MnDOT cost estimate(the relocation study identified approximately Recommendations and Comments MnDOT needs to review in further detail the potential impacts the proposed highway and ew frontage roads will have on the existing utiliities. It is r cuoi tins are impacted DOT evie wand address the following items prior to considering relocation: 1, Aging Infrastructure-the majority old.Most of the utilities main cast MnDOT right of pipe(CIP)way are approximately 30 to 40+years These utilities ar and the sanitary sewer is primarily reinforced concrete pipe(RCP). more susceptible to additional maintenaii en rir future. r t or improvements(i.e.,possibility of pipe g whee appropriate)to the infrastructure should be considered. sanitary sewer and 2. Utility Location Impacts-for the most part,both the existing water main are located either beneath storne areas below the edge between TH-36 the frontage road and TH-36,or It is roadway(sanitary sewer approximately 700'west of Oakgreen Avenue North). • Page 35 of 36 SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights Oak Park Heights Follow-,,p to meeting with MnDOT on 8/24/11 Page 4 • 9//9/11 MnDOTs policy to not leave any longitudinal utilities under any paved portion of the highway. These structures and pipe will be Impacted during construction of the new roadway(i.e., possible pipe damage,stresses,or failures during compaction methods). Also,any maintenance or servicing in the future will be difficult If the utilities are not relocated. 3. Sustainable Infrastructure and Updating to Current Design Standards-the Infrastructure under the new roadways needs to be of durable materials and designed for a long service life with the current design standards. Future development needs should be discussed. The utilities need to be relatively free of routine maintenance and servicing due to the proximity to the highway. The current MnDOT design adversely impacts the utilities within the MnDOT right of way.In considering the three items listed above with practical engineering economic practices,these utilities need to be relocated,replaced,or improved prior to placement of a new roadway constructed above and adjacent to these utilities. It Is recommended that MnDOT review the above items and respond as to why the utilities are not planned to be relocated,replaced,or improved as part of their current design. It should be the full intention of both parties to ensure the infrastructure Is sustainable and will protect the large investment with the new roadways into the future.Additional discussions between MnDOT and the City need to occur in order to further understand the large discrepancy utility relocation or replacement needs. • Y If you have any questions or require additional information,please feel free to contact me at (651)604-4808. Sincerely, BONES-11100,INC. Christopher W. Long, P.E. Cc: Andy Kegley—Public Works Director,Betty Caruso-Finance Director, Mark Vierling— City Attorney;Bonestroo: Mark Hanson, Dave Hanson, Mike NIA, Mike Warner. SCRCP-Estimated Cost Impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights • Page 36 of 36 • N MES° Mn/DOT POLICY b o* rgti POSITION STATEMENT T pg ,of Too. Date: August 7, 1985 Revised: June 2001 Revised: April 2004 Reference: Highways(including Bikeways)6.1 Policy and Procedures for Cooperative Construction Projects With Local Units of Government Position Statement: Where a mutual benefit and a demonstrated transportation need exists,Mn/DOT endorses cooperative construction projects with local units of government. Mn/DOT's ability to expend • trunk highway funds for cooperative construction projects is limited by the State of Minnesota Constitution,Article XIV, section 2 and section 6, and by Minnesota Statutes § 161.20 to the construction,improvement, and maintenance of the trunk highway system. This policy applies to all Mn/DOT construction projects. This policy has been developed to determine the extent to which trunk highway funds may be expended, and when local unit of government funds are necessary,for elements of a cooperative construction project. The basis of the policy is that Mn/DOT participation is limited to trunk highway purposes. This policy is for internal Mn/DOT purposes only, and it is not intended to provide any claim or expectation of legal entitlement to financial participation except where Mn/DOT has specifically contracted at its sole discretion for such participation. Mn/DOT retains the final authority to determine whether it will participate in the cost of any project. Existing cooperative construction agreements are to remain in effect under the terms and conditions specified in those agreements. The policy and procedures within this document shall apply only to the development of new cooperative construction agreements with local units of government. 6-1 • Cooperative Construction Page 1 of 2 Projects with Local Position Statement Government DS12.doc Ill Cooperative construction projects may be initiated by Mn/DOT requesting local participation in a trunk highway project, or by a local unit of government either: • Requesting improvements or otherwise indicating its willingness to share the cost of a Mn/DOT project; or, • Requesting Mn/DOT cost participation in a locally-initiated project. This policy is written for application to Mn/DOT-initiated projects. Mn/DOT cost participation will typically be at the amount identified in this policy for Mn/DOT-initiated projects. Mn/DOT's cost participation identified in this policy may also be applied to a locally-initiated project,with eligible trunk highway items. However,trunk highway funding is not available to address all trunk highway system needs or opportunities presented by locally-initiated projects. Mn/DOT funding available for participation in a locally-initiated project,project priority, scope, and the extent of participation in a particular project is determined during development of the district transportation improvement program. Related Laws and Mn/DOT Policies: This policy replaces the cost sharing provisions of all previous Mn/DOT cooperative cost III participation policies, including"Procedures for Cooperative Construction Projects with Municipalities"(Technical Memorandum 99-17-ES-04),Mn/DOT policy on Bikeway and Other Non-Motorized,Multi-use Trail Accommodations within Trunk Highway Right-of-Way (Technical Memorandum 99-04-ES-01),Policy on Stormwater Related Fees and Assessments (Technical Memorandum 97-07-ES-02),Guidelines for Participation in Aesthetic Bridge Designs(Technical Memorandum 96-37-B-04),Roadway Lighting Cost Participation Policy (Technical Memorandum 94-33-T-07), and Mn/DOT's Traffic Engineering Manual,and other Mn/DOT district or office cost participation guidelines. Related laws are identified in Appendix A of the Mn/DOT Policy Guideline for Policy and Procedures for Cooperative Construction Projects with Local Units of Government. Douglas H. Differt, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer Any questions regarding this position statement should be directed to: Mn/DOT's Municipal Agreements Engineer,MS 682 Transportation Building, Phone(651)296-0969. Cooperative Construction Position Statement 6-2 • Background: Projects with Local Page 2 of 2 Government DS12.doc • NE3o �°��N rgyo Mn/DOT POLICY yQ0 GUIDELINE �OF TRP� Date: August 7, 1985 Revised: June,2001 Revised: April,2004 Reference:Highways(including Bikeways) 6.1.G-1 Policy and Procedures for Cooperative Construction Projects with Local Units of Government Guideline: TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GUIDELINES • A. Background,Purpose,Application 5 1. Background 5 2. Purpose 6 3. Application 6 B. Categories of Local Units of Government and Division of Costs 8 C. Funding 8 1. Federal Aid Formula Funds 9 2. State Funds 10 3. Local Funds 10 4. Transportation Revolving Loan Funds 10 5. Local Road Improvement Program 11 D. Application of Policy Guidelines to Projects 11 1. Studies,Preliminary Engineering,and Design 11 a. Joint Powers Agreement 12 b. Cooperative Construction Agreement 12 2. Right-of-Way Acquisition 13 a. Locally-initiated Projects 13 b. Mn/DOT-initiated Projects 14 3. Cooperative Construction Projects 14 a. Roadways 15 b. Interchanges and Grade Separations 22 • Guidelines for Cooperative Table of Contents 6-3 Construction Projects Page 1 of 89 DS11.doc •fie. Drainage 28 • .. cl. Lighting, Signals,and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) 32 --e. Sidewalks,Bikeways, and Multi-use Trails 37 f. Aesthetic Elements 40 rg. Utilities Owned by Local Units of Government 49 4. Construction Engineering 51 5. ' 'Maintenance 52 a. Roadway 52 b. Bridge 53 c. Drainage 54 d. Lighting, Signals, and Signing 54 e. Sidewalks,Bikeways, and Multi-use Trails 57 f. Aesthetics 57 II. PROCEDURES A. Agreement Procedures 58 1. Minimum Agreement Amount 58 2. Pro-Rata Items 58 3. Cost Estimates during Project Development 59 4. Two-party and Multi-party Agreements 59 5. Federal Aid Funds Applied to the Local Cost Share 60 6. Cost Share Information in Construction Plans 60 410 7. Procedures and Responsibilities for Cooperative Construction Projects.61 a. STIP 62 b. Resolution 62 c. District Responsibilities 62 d. District Review of Locally-initiated Projects 62 e. District Approval of Locally-initiated Projects 63 f. Project Turn-in to Mn/DOT Central Office 63 g. Construction Plan Review 64 h. Advertising for Bids 64 i. Award of Contract 65 j. Payment by a Local Unit of Government to Mn/DOT 66 k. Payment by Mn/DOT to a Local Unit of Government 66 1. As-built Construction Plans Submitted by a Local Unit of Government 66 B. • Methods for Computing Cost Shares 66 1. Composite Percentage 67 2. As-built Quantities(Schedule I) 68 3. Lump Sum 69 4. Bid-priced Lump Sum 69 5. Design Build Procedures 69 Guidelines for Cooperative Table of Contents 6-4 • Construction Projects Page 2 of 89 DS11.doc • C. Policy Liaisons and Compliance Oversight 70 1. STIP Identification 70 2. Development of Cost Participation Responsibilities 70 3. Plan Information and Agreement Preparation 71 D. Policy Revisions 71 E. Exception Procedures 71 F. Other Types of Agreements 71 1. Landscape Partnership 71 2. Joint Powers 72 3. Interagency 72 4. Maintenance 72 5. Detour 72 6. Consultant 73 7. Technical Assistance 73 8. Partnership 73 9. Unofficial Detour - 74 10. Utility 74 11. Railroad 74 12. State Aid 74 G. Permits 75 1. Limited Use 75 2. Construction 75 II/ 3. Utility 76 4. Drainage 76 5. Access 76 APPENDIX A. Minnesota Constitution, Statutes,and Rules References 77 B. Mn/DOT Cost Participation in Bridge Replacement Before End of Structural Life 80b C. Aesthetic Participation Example 81c D. Cooperative Construction Agreement Process Timeline 83e GLOSSARY 80f IIIGuidelines for Cooperative Table of Contents 6-5 Construction Projects Page 3 of 89 DS11.doc IL • I. GUIDELINES A. Background,Purpose,Application 1. Background Where a mutual benefit aft nd a de101 nstrated transportation need exists, Mn/DOT endorses cooperative costruction projects with local units of government. Mn/DOT's ability texpend trunk highway funds for cooperative construction projects limited by the State of Minnesota Constitution,Article XIV, sectio and section 6,and by Minnesota Statutes 161.20 to the construcion, mpvement, and mantenance of the trunk ighway systemSpecifically,Minnesota Constitution Article XIV, section 2 establishes"... a trunk highway system which shall be constructed,improved and maintained as public highways of the state,"and section 6 establishes" ... a trunk highway fund which shall be used solely for the purposes specified in section of this article."Minnesota Statutes§ 161.20 defines the general responsibilities of the Commissioner of Transportation. Minnesota Statutes § 161.20, subdivision 2 permits the commissioner to make arrangements with,and cooperate with,any governmental authority for the purpose of effecting the provisions of Minnesota Statutes§ 161.20. Minnesota Statutes § 161.20,subdivision 3 states"The commissioner may expend trunk highway funds only for trunk highway purposes." Minnesota Statutes § 161.38, subdivision 1 provides that"The road authorities of any county,city or township may enter into an agreement with the commissioner for the construction of a roadway or structure of greater width or capacity than would be necessary to accommodate the normal trunk highway traffic upon any trunk highway within its boundaries and may appropriate from any funds available and pay into the trunk highway fund such sums of money as may be agreed upon." Cooperative construction projects may be initiated by Mn/DOT requesting local participation in a trunk highway project,or by a local unit of government either:• Requesting improvements or otherwise indicating its willingness to share the cost oa M /DT project;or, • Requesting Mn/DOT cost participation in a locally-initiated project. • Section I Al 6-7 Guidelines for Cooperative Page 5 of 89 Construction Projects 9 DSl l.doc 2. Purpose • This Guideline has been developed to determine the extent to which trunk highway funds may be expended on elements of a cooperative construction project. The basis of the policy is that Mn/DOT participation is limited to trunk highway purposes. 3. Application This Guideline is for internal Mn/DOT purposes only, and it is not intended to provide any claim or expectation of legal entitlement to financial participation except where Mn/DOT has specifically contracted at its sole discretion for such participation. Mn/DOT retains the final authority to determine whether it will participate in the cost of any project. This Guideline applies to: • State trunk highway funds,including formula federal-aid funds made available to Mn/DOT through Area Transportation Partnership procedures, and discretionary and other federal-aid funds apportioned to Mn/DOT projects,which are included in the State Road Construction account. • Cost participation for elements of a Mn/DOT-programmed construction project. • Determination of whether a local unit of government's funding • participation is necessary for portions of a Mn/DOT-programmed trunk highway construction project. • Determination of the extent to which Mn/DOT may participate in a locally-initiated project. Mn/DOT participation, in accordance with this policy, is limited to the project scope determined by the district to be necessary to address the trunk highway purposes. Costs for items requested by local units of government,beyond those determined as necessary by the district,will be the responsibility of the local unit of government. This Guideline is written for application to Mn/DOT-initiated projects. Mn/DOT participation will typically be applied at the amount identified in this policy for Mn/DOT-initiated projects. Mn/DOT's cost participation identified in this policy may also be applied to a locally-initiated project,with eligible trunk highway items. However,trunk highway funding is not available to address all trunk highway system needs or opportunities presented by locally-initiated projects. Mn/DOT funding available for participation in a locally-initiated project,project priority, scope, Guidelines for Cooperative Section I A3 6-8 • Construction Projects Page 6 of 89 DSI I.doc • and the extent of participation in a particular project is determined during development of the district transportation improvement program. The Mn/DOT programming process, in cooperation with Area Transportation Partnerships and Municipal Planning Organizations,is based on overall system needs and resource availability. Details of the Mn/DOT project programming process are addressed in Guidance for the Development of the State Transportation Improvement Program. Mn/DOT participation amounts in locally-initiated projects,as identified in this policy,are maximums, and actual Mn/DOT participation may be less than the policy maximum for any project element. The willingness of a local agency to participate in excess of cost participation identified in this policy may influence Mn/DOT programming priorities because of the opportunity to address recognized needs at a reduced cost to Mn/DOT. Cost participation from local units of government will typically be required for locally requested project elements,for design beyond what Mn/DOT has determined as necessary for the trunk highway project scope,for design beyond applicable design criteria, or for items that produce negative impacts on the trunk highway system, such as traffic control signals,local road access, or parking. Local cost participation is also likely for locally requested replacement of the existing trunk highway infrastructure in advance of • obsolescence. Locally owned utility relocation costs are determined in accordance with applicable Minnesota statutes and rules. It is recognized that many projects will have both trunk highway and local purposes. In many situations,those purposes may not be easily assigned as either Mn/DOT or local responsibility. In these cases,costs are assigned in this policy on the basis of jurisdictional ownership or as a cooperative construction item as identified in Section IB. Trunk highway improvements directly necessitated by a specific development adjacent to the trunk highway,by other projects,or by locally-initiated projects,may be required by Mn/DOT at 100%local unit of government cost responsibility. Such improvements are handled as part of Mn/DOT's permitting procedures and are briefly described in Section IIG of this policy. Existing cooperative construction agreements are to remain in effect under the terms and conditions specified in those agreements. The policy and procedures within this document shall apply only to the development of new cooperative construction agreements with local units of government. • Guidelines for Cooperative Section I A3 6-9 Construction Projects Page 7 of 89 DS11.doc Wherever practical,Mn/DOT's cost participation responsibilities should be • developed using a wholistic approach that includes all items required for the particular project,in accordance with this policy. As an example,Mn/DOT participation in a frontage road project should be the same as for the roadway, drainage,aesthetics,utilities,right-of-way,and other items necessary to construct the frontage road. B. Categories of Local Units of Government and Division of Costs Two categories of local units of government will be used in determining cost participation for cooperative construction items. Local units of government in Category A are not eligible for apportionments from the Municipal State Aid Street Fund established by Minnesota Statutes §162,while the local units of government in Category B are eligible for these apportionments. Category A consists of the following: • Those cities having a population of less than 5,000; and, • All townships. Category B consists of the following: • Those cities having a population of 5,000 or more; and, • All counties. The cost of items identified as cooperative construction items in this policy will • be divided as follows: • Category A: 90%Mn/DOT and 10%local unit of government • Category B: 60%Mn/DOT and 40%local unit of government All other items will have costs divided in accordance with the specific provisions of this policy. C. Funding Mn/DOT biennially requests an appropriation of funds from the legislature based on the estimate of state funds dedicated to the trunk highway fund,federal aid formula funds made available to Mn/DOT through ATP procedures for each of two fiscal years,federal discretionary and high-priority funds apportioned for trunk highway projects and any bond or general fund revenues apportioned for trunk highway projects. The appropriation which consists of Mn/DOT's portion of funds from these sources comprise Mn/DOT's State Road Construction(SRC) account. SRC account dollars may be expended only on projects or those elements of projects that are necessary for trunk highway purposes. Guidelines for Cooperative Section C 6-10 Construction Projects Page 8 of 89 DS11.doc Funds apportioned to Mn/D OT outside of the SRC account may not be governed • by the same statutes and rules that apply p y to SRC account funds. Projects or project elements not eligible for SRC account funds' The eo a units by this policy as the responsibility of local units of government.to be used for local shares of government are responsible for identifying funding in cooperative construction projects. Mn/DOT a ill be assist g v rn xplain how identifying various sources of funding that y each source works. lable to Mn/DOT should make project scope and cost participation the project developmentlprocess. local units of government as soon as possible P This information should be available early enough to enable local governments to seek federal aid fund participation,Transportation Revolving Loan Fund loans,or other local funding sources to assist in paying their share of the project costs. The local share of a project must be identified in the State Transportation Improvement Program(STIP)as a separate line from n he Mn/DO share.amounts If should federal funds or advance construction funds are being shown be placed in the proper column and the match ho entire be smo t under old the"Other"er p funds column. If TRLF funds are being used,"Other" funds column. • 1. Federal Aid Formula Funds The rules for formula federal aid fund eligibility is are much different not bound by many of the rules for state fund eligibility. Federal funding barriers placed on the use of SRC funds through e the state only on roadways statutes. In most cases,federal aid funds Y spent functional classified as rural major collectors,urban collectors,or higher anything that classifications. In general,federal aid funds tmate aid programs.However, is eligible under the state trunk highway federal aid funding eligibility varies by specific federal funding source. determines how federal aid funds The Area Transportation Partnership(ATP) aid funds will be applied to projects,and in most districts,determines toward the local share will receive federal funding.Federal aid funds applied of a cooperative construction project shall government are atr°ugly encouraged to process. Mn/DOT and local units of g projects as a single develop traffic signal and other federal cooperative id funds construction hat may be applied. project and jointly pursue any • erative Section I Cl Guidelines for Coop page 9 of 89 Construction Projects DS11.doc Some federal aid funds may be distributed to projects at Mn/DOT's discretion in accordance with ATP procedures and this policy. These funds are typicall • applied to trunk highway projects initiated by Mn/DOT in accordance with y district priorities and are charged against the SRC account and the district target transportation improvement program. Mn/DOT may not apply federal aid funds included in the SRC account towards the local share of cooperative construction projects. Such expenditures are a violation of the State of Minnesota Constitution and Statutes,which limit expenditure of SRC account funds to trunk highway purposes. Such expenditures would also reduce the anticipated revenues to the SRC account and would require a reduction in the trunk highway budget. For further information on federal aid formula funds, contact the Project Authorization Unit in the Mn/DOT Office of Investment Management. 2. State Funds State funds include all state trunk highway funds constitutionally dedicated for trunk highway purposes and identified in the SRC account. This policy may also apply to other state funding sources, such as bonds or general funds appropriated by the legislature for transportation purposes. However, these funding sources may have greater or reduced flexibility for application due to statutory requirements for their use. 3. Local Funds • Local funds include all federal aid funds made available for a local unit of government project or for a portion of a cooperative construction project through ATP procedures, county and municipal state aid funds,and other local funds provided by a local unit of government. 4. Transportation Revolving Loan Funds(TRLF) The TRLF loan fund is available to Mn/DOT and local governments for any United States Code Title 23 purpose or United States Code Title 49 capital expenditure. Title 23 is the title for regulations dealing with federal aid highways and outlines eligibility for funding a project with federal aid highway funds. Title 49 is the title for federal aid transit funds. TRLF loans are treated as federal funds. Therefore, the work to be performed with TRLF loan proceeds must be eligible for federal aid under Title 23 or Title 49. Guidelines for Cooperative Construction Projects Section 18 DS11.doc Page 10 of 89 • • Much of the local share of cooperative construction projects that is not eligible for Mn/DOT funding under this policy is eligible for a TRLF loan. It is important that Mn/DOT inform local units of government of their potential project costs early enough in the project development process sower interest rate application for a TRLF loan. TRLF loans normally carry than does the issuing of bonds,and they allow payments to be spread out over a period of up to 30 years. Specific language relating to the TRLF can be found in Minnesota Statutes §446A.085. efoun l tinformation regarding TRLF loans and the application process can d www.oim.dot.state.mn.us/trlf/index.html. 5. Local Road Improvement Program In 2002,the Legislature created the Local Road Improvement Program [Minnesota Statutes § 174.521 The fund for this program has two accounts. The Trunk Highway Corridor Projects Account is specifically intended to provide funding assistance to local units of government with the local share of costs of improving Trunk Highways through their communities. This account is administered through the Mn/DOT Division of State Aid for Local Transportation,which receives the project applications and depending on the availability of funds,makes awards either in the form of grants or loans or a combination of each,using eligibility and ranking criteria to be developed which may include an ability to pay factor. • D. Application of Policy Guidelines to Projects 1. Studies,Preliminary Engineering,and Design The commissioner's ability to undertake studies for the location and design of highways and to cooperate with local units 1 of government 2ernment is defined in Minnesota Statutes§ 161.21, Mn/DOT will typically be responsible for all study,preliminary engineering, and design costs for Mn/DOT-initiated projects. Local units of government will be responsible for all study,preliminary engineering,and design costs for locally-initiated projects. Project-specific circumstances may warrant joint Mn/DOT and local participation in a study,preliminary engineering or design. The extent of Mn/DOT cost participation in such joint studies will be decided by the district on a case-by-case basis relative to trunk highway needs and priorities. • Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D1 Construction Projects Page 11 of 89 NMI DS11.doc l.a. Joint Powers Agreement • Cooperative cost sharing for studies,preliminary engineering, and design costs are typically administered separately from cooperative construction agreements through Mn/DOT's Consultant Agreements Office by development of a Joint Powers Agreement between Mn/DOT and the participating local unit of government. Such costs are paid out of the district consultant budget allocation rather than out of construction funds. This type of agreement is briefly described in section IIF2 of this document,but is beyond the scope of this policy. 1.b. Cooperative Construction Agreement Project-specific circumstances may warrant inclusion of studies, preliminary engineering,and design costs in the cooperative construction agreement for subsequent trunk highway construction. These costs are paid for with construction program funds. Project- specific circumstances may include: • Mn/DOT reimbursement of all direct costs for studies,preliminary engineering,and design by local units of government staff,provided they are prepatory to subsequent trunk highway construction that is included in the same agreement. • Costs for studies,preliminary engineering, and design prepared by a • consulting firm retained by a local unit of government when such costs are relatively small and incidental to the cost of the subsequent trunk highway construction,and preparation of a separate agreement for these costs is not cost-effective. The district must ensure that selection of the consultant was conducted in a fair, open and competitive process in accordance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations. Justification for use of construction program funds for such costs must be documented by the district,concurred with by the director of the Program Delivery Group,and submitted to the director of the Program Support Group for approval on a case-by-case basis. Any reimbursement for studies, preliminary engineering,or design costs will be included in the cooperative construction agreement as a lump sum amount. For further information regarding agreement procedures for studies, preliminary engineering,and design, contact Mn/DOT's Consultant Agreements Office. Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D1b Construction Projects Page 12 of 89 6-14 • DS11.doc • 2. Right-of-Way Acquisition The following procedures describe standard right-of-way acquisition practices,and have been developed to assist districts in coordinating projects with local units of government.Right-of-way acquisition for projects which include any local federal aid funds, SRC funds,or any property that will be conveyed to Mn/DOT must be reviewed and certified by Mn/DOT. This certification is to ensure that all property needed for any portion of the project was acquired in accordance with applicable state and federal statutes and policies. This certification must be completed prior to approval of the construction plan by the director of the Office of Land Management and the State Design Engineer,and is a condition for payment of construction costs by Mn/DOT. 2.a. Locally-initiated Projects When a cooperative construction project is initiated by a local unit of government,the local unit of government will typically acquire the necessary right-of-way. The width of trunk highway right-of-way necessary for a cooperative construction project is subject to Mn/DOT approval. The local unit of government will obtain all locally acquired,permanent • right-of--way,fee title,permanent easements, and temporary easements and permits,including the right to discharge drainage, in the name of the local unit of government. The documents showing that the local unit of government has obtained the property rights needed for the project must be transmitted to Mn/DOT when the plan and other documents are submitted for preparation of the cooperative construction agreement. Information as to form and acceptability can be obtained from the district. It is advised that the local unit of government contact and coordinate with the district Right-of-Way Office prior to right-of-way activities,especially when it is necessary to relocate residences or businesses. Where Mn/DOT deems it appropriate,Mn/DOT may incorporate all or portions of such locally-acquired right-of-way into the trunk highway system. Mn/DOT may also participate in acquisition of right-of-way required for frontage and construction.Mn/DOT will typically reimburse the local unit of government for right-of-way conveyed to Mn/DOT in the same ratio as Mn/DOT's participation in the construction work requiring the trunk highway or frontage road right-of-way acquisition. . Section I D2a 6-15 Guidelines for Cooperative Construction Projects Page 13 of 89 DS11.doc Project-specific circumstances may warrant Mn/DOT acquisition of III right-of-way for a locally-initiated project. The local unit of government shall be responsible for 100%of the right- of-way costs for right-of-way not acquired for frontage road construction or incorporated into the trunk highway right-of-way. 2.b. Mn/DOT-initiated Projects When a cooperative construction project is initiated by Mn/DOT, Mn/DOT will typically acquire all necessary right-of-way for the entire portion of the cooperative construction project. Mn/DOT participation in such right-of--way costs will be in the same ratio as the construction work requiring the right-of-way acquisition. The local unit of government will acquire and fund necessary right-of- way for any portion of construction in which Mn/DOT has no cost participation. Project-specific conditions may warrant Mn/DOT acquisition of such right-of-way. In such cases,the local unit of government is responsible for ri ght-of-way costs associated with construction work in which Mn/DOT has no participation. Project-specific circumstances may warrant local unit of government acquisition of the cooperative construction portion of a Mn/DOT- initiated project. Mn/DOT will typically reimburse the local unit of government for such right-of-way conveyed to Mn/DOT. Acquisition of ri ght-of--way by local units of government will be on a case-by-case basis. The amount, location,acquisition process, and cost of right-of- way to be acquired by a local unit of government for a Mn/DOT- initiated cooperative construction project must be approved by the district right-of-way engineer and the Director of the Mn/DOT Office of Land Management prior to acquisition. 3. Cooperative Construction Projects This policy applies to all construction items included in cooperative construction projects. Unless otherwise stated in this policy,Mn/DOT funding participation on local roadways,including frontage roads and bridges, is limited to the design criteria required to accommodate the traffic projection factor applied to existing traffic, as determined by Mn/DOT,in coordination with the local unit Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3 6-16 Ill Construction Projects Page 14 of 89 DS11.doc • of government. All costs for project elements beyond what is required for these design criteria or traffic projections shall be 100%the responsibility of the local unit of government. Mn/DOT will participate in costs for signing and striping in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,in the same ratio as Mn/DOT participation in the construction work which necessitates the signing and striping. All other signing costs will be the responsibility of the local unit of government. Responsibility for costs associated with legally-required mitigation of project impacts will be apportioned to each agency in the same ratio as the cost participation in the project or project element causing the need for mitigation. The cost participation as described below is for construction costs only and does not apply to right-of-way acquisition. Right-of-way acquisition costs shall be in accordance with section 1D2 of this policy. Construction cost responsibility for cooperative construction projects shall be determined in accordance with the policies outlined below regarding roadways;interchanges and grade separations;drainage;lighting, signals,and intelligent transportation systems; sidewalks,bikeways,and multi-use trails; aesthetic elements;and utilities owned by local units of government. 3.a. Roadways 1. Background Mn/DOT may participate in roadway projects on the trunk highway and on roadways under the jurisdiction of a local unit of government if the projects directly improve the safety,operation or maintenance of the trunk highway system through access control or trunk highway intersection improvements,or if the projects effect changes in the local roadway design, location or operation required by other trunk highway improvements. 2. Application For the purposes of this policy,roadway costs include all items necessary for construction of the roadway. These costs include,but are not limited to the following: • Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3a 2 6-17 Construction Projects Page 15 of 89 DS11.doc -Excavation and backfill - Subsurface drainage - Surfacing • -Through-lanes - Shoulders -Auxiliary lanes -Turn lanes -Curb and gutter -Median islands -Ramp meters and ramp-meter - Signing - Striping bypasses -Bus turnouts -Fencing -Entrances to the trunk highway -Removals -Turf establishment -High occupancy vehicle(HOV) -Bus lanes -Noise walls lanes -Retaining walls i. Trunk Highways Mn/DOT will be responsible for 100%of all roadway costs for Mn/DOT-initiated and programmed trunk highway improvements to applicable design criteria as determined by Mn/DOT. Additional items requested by a local agency beyond the applicable design criteria for the trunk highway must be approved by Mn/DOT,and all associated costs, except for aesthetic elements in accordance with section ID3f of this policy, will be the responsibility of the local unit of government. ii. Trunk Highway Parking Mn/DOT will participate in the perpetuation of existing parking along the trunk highway. Parking lane construction includes pavement, aggregate base,borrow items and removals. If milling and overlay, then participation includes the mill and overlay. Participation will be in accordance with the following: • Where parallel or angle parking currently exists,and the local agency wishes to perpetuate parking,the commissioner must approve continued parking along the trunk highway in writing in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 169.04 and § 169.35. In these situations,the parking will be considered a cooperative construction item, and Mn/DOT's share will be limited to 90%or 60%, in accordance with section IB of this policy. • Mn/DOT participation is limited to the parking lane reconstruction,up to 12 feet for parallel parking,and up to 22 feet for angled parking, as measured from the outside edge of the traffic through-lane. All other costs will be local costs. Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3a 2ii 6-18 • Construction Projects Page 16 of 89 DS11.doc • • Curb and gutter,when required for the project,will be 100% Mn/DOT responsibility. • This cost participation will also apply to parking lanes where parking is restricted during peak hours. • Mn/DOT will be responsible for 100%of all construction costs related to the removal of parking from the trunk highway. Mn/DOT may also provide additional funding for the relocation of an equal number of parking spaces off the trunk highway. Mn/DOT funding to relocate parking off the trunk highway will be handled on a case-by-case basis. • Where parking does not currently exist,Mn/DOT will not participate in costs associated with creation of parking on the trunk highway. iii. Local Roadways Mn/DOT will be responsible for up to 100%of local roadway construction costs,including frontage roads and right-of-way costs,in accordance with section ID2 of this policy,required as a result of trunk highway construction. Mn/DOT's participation 4110 will be in the same ratio as the trunk highway improvement necessitating the local roadway construction in accordance with the following: • Minnesota Statutes § 161.24, subdivision 1,for costs associated with reconstruction of local roadway as necessitated by a change of grade at an intersection with a trunk highway to the original geometric and structural section,to a reasonable touchdown point. • Minnesota Statutes § 161.24, subdivision 4,for costs associated with relocation and construction of portions of the local roadway system to provide for its continuity and operation at a level that approximates its condition prior to construction. This includes costs for new local roadways, frontage roads, and improvements necessary to adequately accommodate diverted traffic when a Mn/DOT trunk highway project modifies traffic patterns on local roadways. • Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3a 2iii 6-19 Construction Projects Page 17 of 89 DS11.doc • Minnesota Statutes § 161.24, subdivision 3,for costs • associated with improvements necessary to adequately accommodate trunk highway traffic detoured onto a local roadway during trunk highway construction. • For costs to improve local roadways to adequately accommodate traffic turning from the trunk highway onto a local roadway due to the addition of turn lanes on the trunk highway. • Mn/DOT may participate in the costs to close a local access on to the trunk highway. Participation by Mn/DOT and a local unit of government in other local roadway construction costs,not required as a result of trunk highway construction,will be in accordance with the following: • If a local roadway intersecting a trunk highway is to be reconstructed to a design different from that or existing roadway, such as the adding of medians,turn lanes,through- lanes or other additional width,the local unit of government will be responsible for 100%of those costs. • Mn/DOT may participate in costs for reconstruction of local • roadways at intersections with trunk highways to a design different from that of the existing roadway. Mn/DOT participation will be limited to those situations where the local roadway project directly improves the operation or safety of the trunk highway. Mn/DOT participation will be limited to the benefit/cost ratio for costs associated with local roadway construction beyond the existing condition. The benefits will be limited to accident reduction and delay reduction on the trunk highway that directly result from the local road improvement. The costs will be those of the local road improvement beyond the existing condition. Mn/DOT participation may not exceed 100%of the local roadway improvement cost. • Mn/DOT will participate in costs for roadway construction on local roadways necessitated by frontage road construction in the same proportion as Mn/DOT's responsibility for participation in the frontage road construction. Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3a 2iii 6-20 • Construction Projects Page 18 of 89 DS11.doc • • The local unit of government shall be responsible for 100% of the costs to improve the trunk highway to adequately accommodate the traffic turning from the local roadway onto a trunk highway due to the addition of turn lanes on the local roadway or due to the addition of a new local roadway accessing the trunk highway. The local unit of government will be responsible for 100%of all local roadway construction costs not identified above. iv. Frontage Roads Mn/DOT's ability to participate in the construction and maintenance of frontage roads as part of trunk highway improvements is defined in Minnesota Statutes § 161.38, subdivision 3.This policy recognizes that frontage roads serve both trunk highway and local roadway system purposes. Mn/DOT may participate in frontage road costs for improvements to the operation and safety of the adjacent trunk highway by appropriately limiting access to the trunk highway and accommodating predominately local traffic on the frontage road. • The jurisdiction of frontage roads included in cooperative construction projects should be addressed early in the project development process. New frontage roads,and any frontage road which is under Mn/DOT jurisdiction in which Mn/DOT participates in reconstruction,will be released to the local unit of government upon completion of construction activities,either as part of the cost sharing agreement or as part of a separate turnback agreement. Mn/DOT's participation in frontage road construction,on a locally initiated project, shall not exceed the cost of acquiring access control for the adjacent trunk highway. Mn/DOT's base participation in frontage road construction, where access to the trunk highway is being eliminated or reconstruction costs for frontage road improvements that provide safety and operational improvements to the trunk highway, including right-of-way costs in accordance with section ID2 of this policy,will be 90%or 60%,in accordance with section IB of this policy. Mn/DOT's participation may be increased up to 411° Section I D3a 2iv • Page 19 of 89 6-21 • Guidelines for Cooperative Construction Projects DS11.doc 100%,based on compliance with applicable Mn/DOT Access • Management Policy, in the following fashion: • Total Mn/DOT frontage road participation= Mn/DOT base participation+(Access Ratio x Local participation) Where; Mn/DOT base participation is 60%or 90%in accordance with section IB; The Access Ratio is the number of trunk highway access points that do not meet applicable access spacing guidelines,but are determined by the district to be necessary for the project, divided by the total number of access points that do not meet Mn/DOT Access Management Policy; Local participation is 40%or 10%in accordance with section IB. Where all trunk highway access points meet applicable Mn/DOT Access Management Policy Mn/DOT participation will be 100%. • Local participation for frontage roads required as a result of • other trunk highway improvements, such as interchange construction,will be in the same ratio as the local share of the base trunk highway improvement. • For new frontage roads,Mn/DOT participation will be limited to a maximum roadway width of 32 feet,or the applicable design criteria for the traffic projection factor applied to the opening day traffic forecast. Mn/DOT may participate in additional frontage road capacity width when diverted traffic from permanent access closure or other changes in the local roadway system,required by trunk highway construction,increases the capacity needs beyond the anticipated background traffic needs. The additional width determination is calculated after the design for the existing local road system is determined for the projected background traffic. Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3a 2iv Construction Projects Page 20 of 89 6-22 • DS11.doc 9 • • Mn/DOT will not participate in frontage road construction where full access control already exists,or in the reconstruction of an existing frontage road that does not provide safety or operational improvements to the trunk highway system,except for improvements to a frontage road on trunk highway right-of-way necessary for release of the frontage road to a local unit of government. • In the absence of other frontage road improvements, Mn/DOT participatiwcurrently l00ounder Mn/DOT jurisdiction, necessary to improve frontage roads, jurisdiction,to applicable design criteria and satisfactory structural integrity,prior to release of the frontage road to the local unit of government. The local unit of government will be responsible for 100%of frontage road costs,including all parking costs,not identified as Mn/DOT participation above. v. Park-and-Ride Lots may contribute to the construction of park-and-ride • Mn/DOT facilities that are determined to improve operation of the trunk highway system by reduction of single occupancy vehicle(SOV) use on the trunk highway system thru the use of car pool,van pool,or ride-share sites. The park-and-ride facility may be located on Mn/DOT right-of-way or on property owned by the local unit of government,provided that the same trunk highway improvement is achieved. Mn/DOT participation is typically limited to the right-of-way necessary for these facilities. Participation of the local unit of government is usually required for utilities, shelters,structures, lighting,and other above-ground elements of these facilities. Mn/DOT participation will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Design of the park and ride facility needs to take into account future operation,maintenance and security needs. The jurisdiction or the operation,maintenance and security responsibilities of park-and-ride facilities included in cooperative construction projects should be addressed early in the project development process. The park-and-ride lot that is constructed on Mn/DOT right-of-way will either be constructed with a. • Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3a 2v 21 of 89 Construction Projects DS11.doc MI° limited use permit or will be released to the local unit of • government upon completion of construction activities, either as part of the cost sharing agreement or as a separate agreement. vi. Transit Facilities Mn/DOT recognizes the need for transit facilities as an element of the trunk highway system. Varying degrees of safety and operational improvement to the trunk highway result from inclusion of transit facilities. Mn/DOT participation in construction of transit facilities will be considered based on each facility's function and on the anticipated safety and operational improvements to the trunk highway system that will result from the facility. Mn/DOT participation is typically limited to the right-of-way and construction of the roadways, and to the parking necessary for these facilities. Local participation is usually required for utilities shelters, structures, lighting, and other above-ground elements of these facilities. Mn/DOT participation will be determined on a case-by-case basis. The jurisdiction or the operation,maintenance and security responsibilities of transit facilities included in cooperative • construction projects should be addressed early in the project development process and,if necessary,be identified in an agreement or permit. Any transit facility that is constructed on Mn/DOT right-of-way will either be constructed with a limited use permit, a partnership agreement, or will be released to the transit authority upon completion of construction activities. 3.b. Interchanges and Grade Separations 1. Background Interchanges or grade separations must be warranted and consistent with federal,regional or local policies applicable to interchanges and grade separations. Mn/DOT Interchange and Bridge Warrants are documented in Chapter 6 of Mn/DOT's Road Design Manual. This policy assigns cost participation to roadway and bridge costs as part of interchange and grade separation projects on an overall project cost basis. Bridge costs include,but are not limited to,the bridge deck,girders,piers,abutments,bridge rail,approach panels, Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3b 1 Construction Projects Page 22 of 89 6-24 111 DS11.doc ■ • and guardrail necessary to protect bridge elements. Exceptions to the overall interchange or grade separation project cost include traffic control signal systems,lighting, sidewalk and other multi- modal facilities,aesthetic elements,and typical roadway costs. Participation in these items is identified elsewhere in this policy. 2. Application This policy applies to the construction,replacement and improvement of intersections between trunk highways and local roads where there exists currently,or there is proposed to be,one or more grade separation structures. This includes grade separations with and without access between the roadways,as well as pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle crossings. The bridge may carry the trunk highway or the local road or path. i. Trunk Highway-to-Trunk Highway Interchanges and Grade Separations Mn/DOT will typically be responsible for 100%of costs associated with trunk highway-to-trunk highway interchanges and grade separations. • Construction costs for specific local actions or for development that creates new or expands existing traffic generators that directly necessitate the need for such improvements will be viewed as cooperative construction items. All associated costs will be apportioned in accordance with section IB of this policy. ii. New Local Road Interchanges or Grade Separations on New Freeways Mn/DOT is responsible for 100%of the costs associated with those interchanges or grade separations supported by Mn/DOT as a necessary element of the trunk highway project.The local unit of government will be 100%responsible for all other interchanges and grade separations approved by Mn/DOT for inclusion in the project. iii. New Local Road Interchanges or Grade Separations on Existing Freeways New interchanges and grade separations on existing freeways are frequently requested by local units of government to enhance III Section I D3b 2iii 6-25 Guidelines for Coopera Construction Projects Page 23 of 89 DS11.doc local access and transportation systems. The addition of • interchanges can be detrimental to freeway operations because they introduce traffic conflicts along the trunk highway. Therefore, all costs associated with a new interchange or grade separation on an existing freeway must be approved by Mn/DOT and will typically be 100%local responsibility. These costs will include any improvements, such as auxiliary lanes on the existing freeway deemed necessary by Mn/DOT to accommodate the new interchange or grade separation. It is recognized that in some situations,an additional interchange or grade separation may improve operation of the freeway by relieving trunk highway congestion or safety issues at adjacent interchanges. In these situations,Mn/DOT may participate up to the benefit/cost ratio of the benefits directly attributable to the safety and operational improvements to the trunk highway system. The benefits must account for any reduction in safety or operation of the trunk highway system caused by the addition of the new interchange or grade separation. The costs considered for this determination will be total cost of the new interchange or grade separation. iv. New Local Road Interchanges or Grade Separations on Expressways • For the purposes of this policy, it is assumed that the new interchange or grade is consistent with Mn/DOT's Access Management Policy and replaces one or more existing at-grade intersection of a local road with a trunk highway. The term expressway includes current expressways that are being converted to freeway design. Mn/DOT participation will begin at 50%of the construction costs associated with those interchanges supported by Mn/DOT, in recognition of the safety and mobility benefits to both the trunk highway and local roadway. Mn/DOT may participate beyond 50%of the interchange or grade separation costs and up to 85%,based on the criteria below. Ten percentage points may be added to Mn/DOT's share for each of the criteria met below,up to a maximum of 85%if the proposed interchange: Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3b 2iv Construction Projects Page 24 of 89 6-26 • DS11.doc • • Is on an Interregional Corridor; • Is on a High Priority Regional Corridor or trunk highway principal arterial within the Twin Cities urban interstate ring; • Is on an under performing IRC,High Priority Regional Corridor or principal arterial; • Reduces or consolidates local roadway access to the trunk highway,consistent with Mn/DOT's Access Management Policy. • Eliminates one of the intersections on Mn/DOT's list of the 200 highest crash cost intersections,at the time of programming. planned and • Eliminates a traffic control signal or a future p warranted signal on the trunk highway. Districts may reduce their participation has calculated above if the local unit of government not developed stem,or if the interchange adequate supporting local roadway system, is proposed primarily to serve local development. Mn/DOT may participate beyond 85%,with the approval of the Transportation Program Committee. Local contributions of ROW necessary for project construction may be counted toward the local share of costs,as determined to • be appropriate by Mn/DOT. The local jurisdiction is responsible for 100%of roadway,right of way and bridge improvement forecast based beyond those applicableedate- accommodate the traffic aid 20-year traffic projection factor. The local unit of government will be 100%responsible for all interchanges or grade separations ess as required above,but are approved grade intersections or by Mn/DOT. v. Reconstruction of an Existing Local Roadway Interchange or Grade Separation with Trunk Highway Bridge Construction For the purposes of this section of the policy,it is assumed that Mn/DOT is the owner of any interchange or grade separation bridge(s) and that reconstruction includes replacement of these bridge structures. Section I Dab 2v • Guidelines for Cooperative Spage 25 of 89 Construction Projects DS11.doc Win Mn/DOT cost participation in the reconstruction of an • interchange or grade separation with trunk highway bridge construction, including replacement of existing local roadways disturbed by such construction to their original geometric and structural condition, to a reasonable touchdown point, is comprised of two components: structural and functional participation. Mn/DOT's participation in the reconstruction of an interchange or a grade separation with trunk highway bridge construction is the sum of these components. Mn/DOT's structural cost participation percentage is expressed by the equation: Participation%= 143 *(Current Age/Expected Life)—28.6 The structural cost participation component is based on the premise that Mn/DOT will pay the full cost of replacing the existing bridge, to applicable design standards to accommodate the existing number of through lanes, at the end of its structural life. However,if the bridge is replaced prior to the end of its structural life,Mn/DOT will participate at a reduced level based on the present value of the replacement cost minus the current depreciated(remaining)value of the bridge. 110 If the structural cost participation percentage calculated with the above equation is less than zero,then the participation is 0%, and if greater than 100,the participation is 100%. A chart showing the results of this equation is included in Appendix B. For further information regarding the derivation of Mn/DOT structural cost participation,contact Mn/DOT's Office of Investment Management. The functional cost participation component addresses widening or lengthening of the existing bridge beyond the structural replacement width on the premise that the local unit of government will be responsible for the relative cost of roadway widening as part of the bridge widening or lengthening necessary to accommodate the local road widening. Mn/DOT participation will be limited to the additional width necessary to accommodate the design criteria for the applicable State Aid projection factor, as follows: Guidelines for Cooperative IMO Construction Projects Section I Dab 2v DS11.doc Page 26 of 88 • • • For local roadways under the trunk highway,Mn/DOT will be responsible for 80%,and the local unit of government will be responsible for 20%, of additional bridge costs associated with the bridge lengthening necessitated by the local roadway widening; and, • For local roadways over the trunk highway,Mn/DOT will be responsible for 80%,and the local unit of government will be responsible for 20%, of additional approach panel costs and bridge costs associated with the bridge widening necessitated by the local road widening. The local unit of government will be responsible for 100%of approach panel costs and of bridge widening and bridge lengthening costs associated with widening local roadways beyond the design necessary to accommodate the design criteria for the applicable State Aid projection factor. Costs for widening and all other improvements to local roadways at interchanges and grade separations with trunk highway bridges beyond the touchdown point will be 100%the responsibility of the local unit of government. • vi. Improvements to Roadways,Ramps and Loops at Interchanges or Grade Separations That Do Not Require Bridge Reconstruction Improvements to existing roads at local road interchanges or grade separations at a trunk highway typically improve the operation and safety of both the local roadway and the trunk highway. For the purpose of this policy,the improvements are considered to accrue predominately for the roadway system on which they are made. Therefore: • Mn/DOT will be responsible for 100%of the costs of improvements to trunk highways and for the costs of ramps and loops at interchanges or grade separations,including improvements to local roads necessary to accommodate the addition of turn lanes on the trunk highway,ramps or loops. • Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3b Zvi 6-29 Construction Projects Page 27 of 89 DS11.doc • The local unit of government will be responsible for 100%of • the costs for improvements of local roadways at interchanges or grade separations, including improvements to the trunk highway,ramps or loops necessary to accommodate the addition of turn lanes on the local roads. • The local unit of government will be responsible for 100%of costs for the addition of a new ramp or loop to an existing interchange or grade separation. 3.c. Drainage 1. Background Minnesota Statutes § 103E pertains to drainage. This policy is developed on the premise that the landowner is obligated to perpetuate existing drainage. The cost responsibility of Mn/DOT and the local unit of government for drainage beyond the existing condition is determined on the basis of drainage benefit. For purposes of this policy, drainage benefit is defined as accommodating flow beyond the existing drainage condition,or enhancing the water quality treatment of storm water. Mn/DOT is responsible for costs to perpetuate existing drainage and to drain the • trunk highway right-of-way. The local unit of government is responsible for costs necessitated by local roadway improvements, local drainage improvements and increased drainage capacity beyond the existing condition. 2. Application i. Drainage Cost Participation • Mn/DOT will be responsible for up to 100%of the cost for perpetuation of existing drainage affected by,or required for, a trunk highway improvement,in the most effective manner as determined by Mn/DOT in cooperation with local and regulatory agencies. Mn/DOT participation in drainage costs will be in the same proportion as the roadway,interchange or grade separation work necessitating the drainage work. • Costs for a storm sewer drainage system in lieu of a rural drainage system,for strictly aesthetic purposes,except as provided for in section ID3g of this policy,will be 100%the local unit of government responsibility. Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3c 2i 6-30 • Construction Projects Page 28 of 89 DS11.doc • Costs for drainage associated with local roadway • improvements,improvements to local drainage systems such as additional capacity over the existing condition,or other drainage improvements be 100%the local unit of government's l required for a improvement,will responsibility. • Items related to, and necessary for,the drainage system construction, such as the removal of existing pipes and structures,rip-rap,culvert markers,and sod at pipe outlets are considered part of thae drainage system the mane will have the same cost participation • Cost responsibility for storm necessary to accommodate system l extend to an adequate o drainage. ii. Stormwater Treatment and Other Drainage Ponds • Mn/DOT promotes the opportunity to work with local units of government to enhance storm water treatment in conjunction with trunk highway projects that affect drainage. Federal aid enhancement funds may be available through the ATP process and should be considered by Mn/DOT and local • units of government as an option for funding eligible storm water treatment. • Mn/DOT and local participation in pond construction and other items necessary for water quality treatment of drainage generated within the limits of a cooperative construction project will be proportioned to each agency in the same ratio as is the construction work that generates the need for the storm water treatment. • Mn/DOT and local participation in pond construction and in other items necessary for water quality treatment of drainage from outside the limits o each cooperative based on ce ratio of project will be proportioned to agency and or other each agency's water volume entering the p treatment facility. The water volume from the trunk highway right-of-way will be Mn/DOT's share,and the water volume from the non-trunk highway right-of-way will be the local unit of government's share. erative Section I D3c 2ii • Guidelines for Cooperative.. oop Page 29 of 89 Construction Projects DS11.doc • Costs associated with the cooperative construction of storm • water treatment facilities include construction and right-of- way costs. The costs to the local unit of government for acquisition of right-of-way required for the storm water treatment facility may be applied to,but may not exceed, the local share of cooperative construction costs for storm water treatment facilities. • The local unit of government must provide documentation to Mn/DOT for review and certification to ensure that the right- of-way was acquired in accordance with applicable federal and state statutes and regulations. If the local unit of government received the property as a donation, or if the property has been owned by the local unit of government for a considerable amount of time,Mn/DOT will determine the contributing value of the property based on the appraised market value of that property. • The donated property must be dedicated for street and highway purposes by resolution of the governing entity. • Mn/DOT and local participation in drainage system elements and pond construction for hydraulic purposes, such as pipe reduction,will be proportioned to each agency based on the ratio of each agency's costs for the pipe entering the pond. • • Mn/DOT and local participation in ponds,constructed for the combination of water quality treatment and hydraulic purposes will be proportioned to each agency in consideration of the above factors. Mn/DOT participation in ponds constructed for combined purposes may not exceed the maximum amount that Mn/DOT would participate for either single purpose. iii. Drainage Cost Participation Procedures • When local drainage participation is required, cost participation for storm sewers will be determined by ratio of peak discharges by methods identified in the Mn/DOT drainage manual. This approach considers that each party's share, as identified in section ID3c2i of this policy,is the ratio of their peak flow to the summation of each agency's peak flow in a given reach of the storm sewer drainage system. Guidelines for Cooperative Construction Projects Section I D3c 2iii 6-32 DS11.doc Page 30 of 89 • Drainage improvements that alter or divert drainage from the • existing drainage condition will be documented in the cooperative construction agreement as the responsibility of the agency diverting ted with the drainage system. regard to future costs assoc • The cooperative construction agreement will state that no party may direct any additional drainage into the storm water drainage system that was not included in the drainage for which the system was designed,without first he drainage areas permission to do so from the other party served by the storm water drainage facilities constructed for the project must be kept on file in the office of Mn/DOT District Hydraulics Engineer and referenced in the cooperative construction agreement as the existing condition. • Cost participation for treatment ponds will be determined by the ratio of contributing volume(CA)as determined by multiplying the runoff coefficient and contributing area o each party.This method considers that each party participates in proportion to their share of the total runoff. iv. Storm Water Utility Fees • Storm water utility fees have been proposed as an assessment against Mn/DOT to pay for annual maintenance of storm water drainage systems.These fees are not applicable to Mn/DOT because they are not directly linked to a specific benefit provided to the trunk highway system.In some cases,responsibility for maintenance of storm water drainage systems is identified in cooperative agreements between Mn/DOT and local units of government.In cases where responsibility is not identified by agreement,Mn/DOT participation in the maintenance of storm water drainage systems will be as defined in section ID5c of this policy. v. Storm Water Connection Fees Mn/DOT will participate in storm sewer connection fees for properties other than trunk highway right-of-way,such as office and maintenance facilities,as follows: • Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3c 2v 31 of 89 Construction Projects DS11.doc • Mn/DOT will pay a one-time connection fee on existing city • storm drain systems for non-trunk highway right-of-way, such as new office and new maintenance facilities,in a fashion similar to payment of connection fees for commercial/industrial properties in the city. This connection fee will apply only to new facilities that also use other city utilities, such as water and sanitary sewer. The Mn/DOT facility must directly discharge storm water into an existing city storm water drainage system. • For proposed construction or reconstruction of storm water drainage systems by a local unit of government,Mn/DOT will participate in accordance with applicable provisions of this policy. vi. Public Ditches In accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 161.28,Mn/DOT will be responsible for 100%of the costs of impacts to public ditches, under the jurisdiction of a county board or joint county ditch authority,required for a trunk highway project. 3.d. Lighting, Signal,and Intelligent Transportation Systems(ITS) 1. Background • This policy assigns cost participation to traffic control signal systems, lighting,or to ITS construction costs that may be part of a roadway, interchange,grade separation, or an independent project. Any new or revised traffic control signal systems or lighting systems must be approved by Mn/DOT. 2. Application i. Lighting Mn/DOT will participate in,and will approve the installation of, only those lighting systems that are justified in accordance with Mn/DOT's Traffic Engineering Manual,Chapter 10. Lighting systems shall be comprised of standard Mn/DOT lighting equipment unless otherwise approved by Mn/DOT. A limited number of standard pole and fixture types that provide illumination with lighting intensities and uniformity ratios in accordance with Mn/DOT standards have been approved for Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3d 21 Construction Projects Page 32 of 89 • DS11.doc • trunk highway use.Mn/DOT participation is based on standard Mn/DOT lighting equipment. Additional costs for non-standard or aesthetic lighting will be distributed in accordance with section ID3f of this policy,where applicable,or where they are 100%the responsibility of the local unit of government. Aesthetic lighting must meet minimum illumination guidelines and be approved by Mn/DOT for inclusion in trunk highway lighting systems. Additional maintenance costs may also be incurrued by the local unit of government for lighting systems with non-standard Mn/DOT lighting equipment. See section ID5d of this policy for lighting system maintenance and power cost responsibilities. Cost participation for lighting system construction will be as follows: • Mn/DOT will be responsible for 100%of the costs of those lighting units which it deems necessary for the trunk highway system,including lighting along the main traveled roadways, ramps and loops, and the intersections of ramps with cross • streets at interchanges. • Mn/DOT will be responsible for 100%of all costs for those lighting units it deems necessary for the trunk highway on bridges. • For trunk highways under local road bridges,Mn/DOT will be responsible for 100%of all costs of those lighting units under the bridges which it deems necessary to light the trunk highway. The local unit of government will be responsible for lighting the roadway on the bridges. • The lighting of frontage roads not connected with trunk highway entrance or exit ramps will be 100%the responsibility of the local unit of government. • The local unit of government will be responsible for 100%of all costs for all unwarranted lighting installations. Such lighting systems must be approved by Mn/DOT prior to installation. • Section I D3d 2i Page 33 of 89 6-35 Guidelines for Cooperative Construction Projects DSI I.doc • If a local unit of government desires to install a continuous or • intersection lighting system on the trunk highway within corporate city limits,Mn/DOT participation may be up to 50%of the construction costs for locally-initiated continuous or intersection lighting systems on trunk highways,or up to 100%of the construction costs for trunk highway intersections with trunk highways. The lighting system must be approved by Mn/DOT prior to installation. Mn/DOT participation will be determined on a case-by-case basis as determined by district lighting priorities and funding made available for lighting systems in the district construction program. The lighting system plan preparation will be determined on a case-by-case basis. • The local unit of government is responsible for illuminating local roads under trunk highway bridges. Mn/DOT may participate in the cost for underpass lighting when the length of a single bridge underpass exceeds 50 feet and underpass lighting is requested by the local unit of government. • Any lighting system installed on the right of way by Mn/DOT or a local unit of government,with less than 100% Mn/DOT participation,requires the local unit of government to apply for a utility permit Form 2525. Maintenance will be • provided by the local unit of government in accordance with section ID5d of this policy and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 161.45. The local unit of government is also responsible for the source of power and future electrical costs. • If a local unit of government is the owner of a lighting system on a trunk highway,and the reconstruction of the trunk highway requires relocation of all or part of the lighting system,the local unit of government will be required to relocate the system at their own expense. Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3d 2i Construction Projects Page 34 of 89 6-36 DS11.doc 9 • ii. Traffic Signals A Signal Justification Report must be prepared for each proposed traffic signal installation or revision,and must be concurred with by Mn/DOT. Highway traffic signal justification criteria set forth in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,and in Chapter 9-5.00 of the Traffic Engineering Manual,as interpreted by Mn/DOT, shall be used in the preparation of a Signal Justification Report. Mn/DOT will normally enter into a two-party agreement with the local unit of government responsible for the roadway legs intersecting the trunk highway at the intersection to be signalized. In some cases where a local unit of government has a policy of sharing the costs with another local unit of gvrnment, Mn/DOT will prepare and enter into a multi-party agreement. See section IIA4 of this policy for information regarding multi- party agreements.Each local unit of government involved must submit a resolution to Mn/DOT indicating its willingness to share in the costs of the signal project. The agreement may involve construction costs,construction maintenance and power, or solely maintenance and power responsibilities. • Traffic signal system construction costs will be distributed as follows: • Mn/DOT will not participate in traffic signal installations where Mn/DOT determines the traffic signal is not justified. • At trunk highway intersections with local roadways or pedestrian walks,where Mn/DOT determines a signal system is justified,the construction and state furnished material costs will be pro-rated in the same ratio as the number of roadway legs of the intersection,under each jurisdiction,to the total number of roadway legs of the intersection.This applies to all new traffic signal systems and signal system revisions. If a leg is split by a local government boundary,that leg is equally pro-rated between bordering local governments. Private entrances are considered as a local unit of government leg. • Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3d 2ii 6-37 Construction Projects Page 35 of 89 DS11.doc Legs under Mn/DOT jurisdiction include trunk highways, • and ramps and loops at trunk highway interchanges. The combination of a ramp and loop at folded diamond interchanges will be considered as two legs. • Mn/DOT will be responsible for 100%of the costs for trunk highway legs, and if the project has been initiated by Mn/DOT, 90%of the costs for local share legs for traffic signal systems which are using the Federal Hazard Elimination Safety(HES)Program. • When a local road project or a specific adjacent development directly necessitates the need for a new traffic control signal system, or the revision of an existing traffic control signal system,the local unit of government will be responsible for 100%of the signal system and for other costs necessary to provide the safe and efficient operation of the trunk highway, as determined by Mn/DOT. • There will be no additional division of costs for wireless interconnect system equipment that is located at each intersection. The cost will be included and pro-rated at each signal system. • Hardwire interconnected system equipment, including the • master controller and cabinet,related equipment,and hardwire interconnect,will be pro-rated in the same ratio as the total number of interconnected legs of the system under each jurisdiction to the total number of legs in the interconnected system. Any additional equipment necessary in each signal system cabinet will be included and pro-rated at each signal system. • The costs for temporary(wood pole/span wire type system) signal systems, or revision of in-place signal systems that are needed during roadway construction activities(traffic rerouting, detours and bypasses)will be 100%the responsibility of the agency causing the roadway construction activities that require the temporary signals. Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3d 2ii Construction Projects Page 36 of 89 6'38 • DS11.doc • iii. Intelligent Transportation Systems(ITS) ITS is the application of advanced technologies,information systems,and management techniques to improve the safety and operation of transportation systems. Some elements of ITS may include traffic signal control, electronic fare payment,freeway management,railroad crossings,transit management,emergency response,incident management,regional and state-wide multi-modal traveler information,e . h electronic se elements continually change with technology. initiatives. These For projects with other cooperative construction costs,cost participation for individual components of ITS projects should, to the extent possible,be pro-rated to each agency involved,in the same proportion as cost responsibility for the element of the project to which the ITS elements are being applied. Stand-alone ITS projects that involve e participation a basis. local unit of government will be handled Mn/DOT's project manager for the ITS project will develop a memorandum of understanding(MOU)early in the project development process to document address all aspects of thellTS of • each partner. The MOU project,including design,construction,maintenance and operation costs, and responsibilities. 3.e. Sidewalks,Bikeways,and Multi-use Trails 1. Background Mn/DOT recognizes sidewalks,bikeways,and multi-use trails as important elements of the transportation system. Mn/DOT will participate in costs associated with these items when they are affected by a trunk highway project,or to promote the safe and efficient operation of these facilities as part of the trunk highway system. • Section I Die 1 Guidelines for Cooperative page 37 of 89 Construction Projects DS11.doc 2. Application llO i. Sidewalks • Mn/DOT will be responsible for 100%of the construction costs of a new, standard-width sidewalk and pedestrian ramps where Mn/DOT has funding identified for the highway improvement and determines that a new sidewalk is necessary for the safe operation of the trunk highway and accommodation of pedestrians. • Mn/DOT will be responsible for 100%of the construction costs of independent pedestrian ramps that are constructed directly adjacent to a trunk highway where Mn/DOT determines they are necessary for the safe operation of the trunk highway. • Mn/DOT will be responsible for costs to reconstruct existing sidewalks and pedestrian ramps disturbed as a result of a project,with Mn/DOT participation being in the same ratio as Mn/DOT's participation in the work that disturbed the existing sidewalk. Mn/DOT participation in sidewalk reconstruction will be limited to the existing-width or standard-width sidewalk,whichever is greater. • • Costs for locally-initiated replacement of a deteriorated sidewalk and pedestrian ramps within Mn/DOT right-of-way will be considered a cooperative construction item,with Mn/DOT participation limited to 90%or 60%, in accordance with section IC of this policy. • Mn/DOT will participate in costs for sidewalk reconstruction on bridge replacement projects in the same ratio as Mn/DOT participation in the rest of the bridge project when Mn/DOT, in cooperation with the local unit of government, determines that the sidewalk on the bridge is necessary to connect existing sidewalks on the bridge approaches. • Mn/DOT will participate in costs for sidewalk construction on new bridges in the same ratio as Mn/DOT participation in the rest of the bridge project when Mn/DOT, in cooperation with the local unit of government, determines that the sidewalk is necessary to replace previously existing at-grade pedestrian crossings of the trunk highway that has been Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3e 2i Construction Projects Page 38 of 89 6-40 • DS11.doc removed by the bridge project,and that the sidewalk is necessary for the safe operation of the bridge. • Mn/DOT may participate in construction costs for a reasonable number of pedestrian bridges,as determined by Mn/DOT,to replace at-grade pedestrian access severed by conversion of an expressway to a freeway. Mn/DOT participation in such pedestrian bridges will not exceed Mn/DOT participation in adjacent interchange or grade- separation construction required to convert the expressway to a freeway. • The local unit of government will be responsible for 100%of the construction costs for a new sidewalk and independent pedestrian curb ramps where Mn/DOT determines that the sidewalk is not necessary for the safe operation of the trunk highway or the safe accommodation of pedestrians. • The local unit of government will be responsible frontage 0% of the construction costs of new sidewalks along roads and local roadways. • ii. Bikeways and Multi-use trails When developing a trunk highway improvement project, Mn/DOT will determine what facilities are necessary to safely accommodate accordance with other Mn/DOT Technical transportation hnical Memorand modes in acc o Memorandum No. modes 99-04-ES-01. • Mn/DOT will be 100%responsible for costs of facilities which Mn/DOT determines are necessary to accommodate bicycle and other non-motorized transportation modes within the trunk highway right-of-way of a Mn/DOT-initiated project. • Mn/DOT may initiate and be 100%responsible for costs associated with stand-alone bikeway and other non- motorized transportation construction projects within trunk highway right-of-way. • Guidelines for Cooperative Section I Die 2ii 6-41 Construction Projects Page 39 of 89 DS11.doc • Mn/DOT participation in local, locally-initiated bikeway • projects,or other bikeway or multi-use trail facilities not covered above,will be limited to the use of trunk highway right-of-way. Such use must be arranged with the appropriate Mn/DOT district and must be documented through execution of a limited use permit. • All other bikeway and multi-use trail construction will be 100%local responsibility. 3.f. Aesthetic Elements 1. Background In recent years, the importance of transportation design that is sensitive to the surrounding environment has been brought to the forefront with increased emphasis and strengthened direction. Mn/DOT's context sensitive design(CSD)approach to project development is intended to preserve and enhance the state's environmental, scenic,historic and cultural values while addressing transportation objectives. CSD is a means of incorporating aesthetic and cultural values into design so that all of the structures and features enhance the beauty III an d character of the immediate environment and contribute to community identity and its sense of place. CSD embodies the many technical and non-technical aspects of the project development process to tailor transportation design to the individual purposes of a specific project,thereby creating excellence in design. The growing emphasis on producing aesthetically-pleasing and environmentally-sensitive transportation projects has been exhibited at the federal level through environmental policy statements;through establishment of the Transportation Enhancements Program; through various transportation acts,including ISTEA and TEA-21; at the state level by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; and by Mn/DOT as part of the CSD process. Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3f 1 Construction Projects Page 40 of 89 6-42 III DS11.doc • 2. Application This policy has been prepared to identify Mn/DOT cost participation in aesthetic elements of trunk highway projects. Mn/DOT cost participation identified in this policy should not be interpreted as a required level of spending on a particular project. This policy is intended to establish a reasonable and equitable limit for Mn/DOT participation in aesthetic elements of projects,depending on the project setting,type of project,and specific project elements. Aesthetics are an integral component of a highway corridor. However,expenditures for aesthetic elements must be balanced with the recognition that there is not sufficient funding available to meet the growing needs of the trunk highway system. Transportation needs in excess of available funding necessitate prudent investments in project design,including aesthetics elements. Mn/DOT districts, in consultation with coordinating agencies,local units of government,and the public,need to balance aesthetic needs with all other needs of the project,and in consideration of the transportation needs of the district. Aesthetic participation levels applicable to a project will be determined on a project-by-project basis by the district. Aesthetics should be considered early in the project development .411° process.When impacts on visual quality are likely to be widespread, substantial,or adverse,the six-step Visual Impact Assessments (VIA)process is typically used as the threshold criteria for guidance in project development.VIA is a tool and methodology to inform of visual resource inventory,analysis and design,for the pure mitigating and enhancing the affected visual resources associated with transportation projects. The VIA process guidance is included in Mn/DOT's"Highway Project Development Process Handbook 2, part II, section D, Subject Guidance(Visual Quality).Aesthetic elements in which Mn/DOT may participate must be linked sh tde truhe fede al aid T ansportation Enhancement criteria m. established for the Aesthetic elements must have a substantial relationship to the trunk highway system to warrant Mn/DOT participation. The relationship can be one of proximity and function,or one of proximity and impact,but not one of proximity alone. Section I D3f 2 6-43 Guidelines for Cooperative Page 41 of 89 Construction Projects DS11.doc • Proximity is a relationship that enhances the immediate view • shed of the trunk highway corridor or the view of the trunk highway corridor from adjacent properties. • Function is a relationship that facilitates the transportation needs of the trunk highway system, such as planned pedestrian facilities. • Impact is a relationship that improves the interrelationship between the transportation user and the surrounding environment, such as signing or improvements to a scenic overlook. i. Items Considered as Aesthetic Elements Items typically considered as aesthetic elements for application of Mn/DOT aesthetic cost participation include: • • Design elements, such as highway location,alignment,and profile and cross sectional elements to minimize impacts on the surrounding environment and to maximize opportunities for improvements to the roadside environment,where such design elements are chosen for strictly aesthetic purposes. This would include additional costs to upgrade a rural trunk • highway design to an urban design strictly for aesthetic purposes. • Aesthetic treatments, such as surface finishes and pavement coloration,that enhance the appearance of necessary elements of the transportation project beyond the aesthetic features included as a standard component of a project element,such as standard rustication on retaining walls, as identified in Mn/DOT standard plans and specifications. • Aesthetic features, such as structural elements, landscaping, lighting units other than Mn/DOT standards, special utility relocation and other items incorporated into a project to enhance visual and social quality beyond the basic items and features necessary to address the safety,operation and maintenance needs of the project. Guidelines Section I D3f 21 Construction for PCooperative rojects Page 42 of 89 6-44 • DS11.doc • • Bicycle,pedestrian or multi-use trail facilities that are not considered to be an essential element of the trunk highway project in accordance with this policy and are not part of an established or planned state,regional,or local pedestrian, bicycle or multi-use trail facility. ii. Items Not Considered as Aesthetic Elements For the purpose of this policy,those items that are necessary for the project,aside from any aesthetic considerations,are not attributable to Mn/DOT aesthetic funding participation for a project. Project items required for these purposes are included as part of Mn/DOT or local cost participation responsibility,in accordance with this policy,as a non-aesthetic cost of the project. Items typically not considered as aesthetic elements include: • Design elements, such as highway location,alignment, and profile and cross sectional elements are typically influenced by many factors, including aesthetics. Design of the trunk highway will not usually be attributable to Mn/DOT cost participation for aesthetic purposes unless aesthetic 110 considerations were the primary basis for the choice of a design element. • Basic aesthetic treatments and features included as a standard component of a project element, such as standard rustication on retaining walls and abutments,and standard surface treatment for wood or concrete noise walls,as identified in Mn/DOT standard plans and specifications. • Legally-required mitigation,including but not limited to 4(f) regulations,noise and wetland requirements,and guidelines of the State Historic Preservation Office and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. • Snow control landscaping elements. • Warranted lighting,included on the project for safety and operation of the trunk highway,using standard Mn/DOT lighting equipment. • Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3f 2ii 6-45 Construction Projects Page 43 of 89 DS11.doc • Bicycle,pedestrian, or multi-use trail facilities that are • considered to be an essential element of the trunk highway project in accordance with this policy,replacement of an existing bicycle,pedestrian or multi-use trail,or facilities or elements of an established or planned state,regional,or local bicycle,pedestrian, or multi-use trail facility. • Mn/DOT programmed aesthetic,landscape,and site development projects. The intent of these projects is development and improvement of the aesthetic elements of roadsides, state entrances,rest areas,and pedestrian and bike trails. These projects are often independent of other highway projects or program categories. Typical Mn/DOT program categories include Bike Trail(BT),Junk Yard Screening (JY), and Rest Area/Beautification(RB),which includes highway landscaping. iii. Aesthetic Participation Factors Mn/DOT cost participation in aesthetic elements of a trunk highway project is dependent on the following three factors: • The level of impact of the project on the existing setting as 1111 determined through the VIA and other assessment processes; • Specific item categories based on bridges,retaining walls, and noise wall costs; and, • Project type categories based on all project item costs other than bridges,retaining walls,and noise walls. These factors will be determined on a project-by-project basis by the district in coordination with partnering agencies,local units of government,and the public. iv. Level of Impact The level of impact of the project on the existing setting will be determined as one of the following three levels: • LEVEL A: For a limited number of projects that are of major state or federal aesthetic significance. The project has a high level of visual impact on an existing setting that clearly exhibits unique or sensitive features. Aesthetic Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3f 2iv 6-46, • Construction Projects Page 44 of 89 DS11.doc • features may substantially control the design of these projects or project elements. This level includes projects that are located in highly sensitive, social,economic, environmental or historic locations,or may affect items that are historic themselves. The aesthetic impacts of these projects are often addressed in partnership with other federal and state agencies. LEVEL B: For projects that have a moderate visual impact on the surrounding setting. Aesthetic treatment may be appropriate,but not to the extent that it may substantially control the design. These projects typically involve trunk highway corridors that have had substantial prior development on the adjacent land. This level includes projects in urban settings, and settings near recreation areas, parks or other waterways not categorized as unique or sensitive. The aesthetic impacts of these types of projects are often addressed in coordination with state agencies and local units of government. • LEVEL C: For projects that have little or no negative impacts on the surrounding setting. The existing setting is not unique or sensitive. The aesthetic impacts of these types • of projects can often be addressed without coordination with other agencies. v. Specific Item Categories Specific item categories apply to bridges,retaining walls,and noise walls due to their prominent aesthetic impact on a project. Participation factors and limits have been established for these specific items. These factors are applied to the estimated cost of the specific item to determine Mn/DOT aesthetic cost participation limits for that item. The aesthetic cost participation is for treatments beyond the basic aesthetic features included as a standard component of the element,such as standard rustication on retaining walls,as identified in Mn/DOT standard plans and specifications. vi. Project Type Categories The project type category is determined based on the type,the intent and the program funding category of the project in the following fashion: • Section I D3f Zvi 6-47• Guidelines for Cooperative Page 45 of 88 Construction Projects g DS11.doc • Project Type Category 1: Major Construction 4lI The intent of major construction projects is to improve or increase the capacity and the operational characteristics of a highway by adding lanes,by building new roadways or bridges,or by converting at-grade intersections to interchanges. These projects typically involve grading,base, surfacing, bridge replacement and additional right-of-way. The Mn/DOT program category is Major Construction(MC). • Project Type Category 2: Reconstruction The intent of reconstruction projects is to reconstruct segments of the highway system to an accepted standard. These projects involve grading,base,resurfacing,and bridge replacement. They usually do not include the addition of through-lanes,but may involve auxiliary lanes, turn lanes, increased shoulder width,bridge widening and access management improvements. The reconstruction of freeway or controlled access facilities with lane additions substantially within existing right-of-way and with limited modification to access locations would be included in this category. Right-of-way acquisition is common. Replacement of lighting,signals, and other infrastructure is • also common. The Mn/DOT program categories include Reconstruction(RC), Bridge Replacement(BR),and Safety Capacity(SC). • Project Type Category 3: Preservation,and Safety, Maintenance The intent of preservation, safety,and maintenance projects is to repair or preserve the roadway infrastructure or to address specific safety issues. Minor grading in the form of shoulder widening,grade corrections and turn lanes may be undertaken with these projects,but do not involve major changes to the roadway cross section. They may also involve the replacement of roadway infrastructure such as culverts and guardrail. These projects usually have minimal impact on the surrounding environment and involve little or no right- of-way acquisition. The Mn/DOT program categories include Reconditioning(RD),Resurfacing(RS),Road Repair (RX-BARC), Safety Hazard Elimination(SH), Safety Rail (SR), Traffic Management(TM),and Bridge Improvement and Repair(BI). Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3f Zvi • Construction Projects Page 46 of 89 6-48 DS11.doc 9 • vii.Aesthetic Participation Factors Mn/DOT aesthetic participation factors for eligible aesthetic elements of a trunk highway project are determined by the level of impact, specific item,and project type categories according to the following table: Maximum Mn/DOT Aesthetic Participation Factors And Limits As A Percentage Of Estimated Mn/DOT Project Construction Costs Level of Impact Level A Level B Level C Specific Item Categories: 15%not to exceed 7%not to exceed 5%not to exceed Bridges $3,000,000 per bridge $300,000 per bridge $200,000 per bridge Retaining Walls 10% 5% 1%or standard treatments Noise Walls 7% 4% 1% Project Type Categories: o Category 1 - 5% 3% 2/0 Major Construction • Category 2- 3% 2% 1% Reconstruction Category 3- 0% 0% 0% Preservation, Safety& Maintenance Preservation, safety,and maintenance projects and associated funding sources are intended to address specific infrastructure and safety needs of the trunk highway system. These types of projects and associated funding are not typically used for aesthetic enhancements of a trunk highway corridor. Therefore, participation factors for these types of projects have been identified as 0%. However,aesthetics should be considered during development of these projects and should be consistent with other corridor design features or any applicable corridor design guidance. Aesthetic elements for these types of projects are handled through separate contracts and programs,such as landscape development and beautification,but may be included in these project types at the discretion of the district. Inclusion of planned aesthetic improvements in these projects,or tied contracts,may provide significant cost savings. • Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3f 2vii 6-49 Construction Projects Page 47 of 89 DS• 1.doc viii.Mn/DOT Aesthetic Participation • Mn/DOT limits for participation in eligible aesthetic elements of a trunk highway project are determined by application of the appropriate participation factor to Mn/DOT's share of estimated project costs. • The amount of Mn/DOT participation for bridge aesthetic costs is determined on a structure-by-structure basis. The amount of Mn/DOT participation for bridge aesthetics is not transferable to other project elements. Bridges within the same level of impact category may be considered in aggregate to allow for uniform treatments of these bridges. Aesthetic considerations on bridge rehabilitation projects are evaluated on a case-by-case basis,but should be consistent with other corridor design features or with applicable corridor design guidance. • The amount of Mn/DOT participation for retaining wall and noise wall costs is determined on the total estimated cost of these items for the project to allow uniform treatment in consideration of cost variability based on height and structural requirements.Mn/DOT participation for retaining • wall aesthetic and noise walls is not transferable to other project elements. Aesthetic elements of a project extend beyond bridges,retaining walls and noise walls. Therefore,project type categories have been established to address aesthetics not associated with bridges,retaining walls or noise walls. • In addition to aesthetic participation for costs for bridges, retaining walls, and noise walls,Mn/DOT will participate in the cost of aesthetic elements of the project based on the application of the appropriate project type category participation factor to the remaining estimated project cost. The remaining project cost equals the total estimated cost of Mn/DOT participation in the project, less estimated bridge, retaining wall and noise wall costs. Local project costs are not considered in this determination. • Mn/DOT's aesthetic participation for the remaining project cost may be applied to aesthetic participation for bridges, retaining walls and noise walls included in the project. Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3f 2viii 6-50 • Construction Projects Page 48 of 89 DS11.doc • The maximum amount of Mn/DOT participation in the costs for aesthetic elements of a project is the sum of the bridge,retaining wall,noise wall and remaining project cost components.Costs for aesthetic elements beyond those established as eligible for Mn/DOT participation,or beyond Mn/DOT's maximum participation in accordance with this policy,will be 100%local responsibility. More than one aesthetic participation factor may be used on a project.For example,one bridge may be of greater significance than another bridge and could have a higher level of impact for determination of Mn/DOT aesthetic participation. Similarly,one segment of a project may fall within an area that warrants a different level of impact than the rest of the project, such as an urban area on a longer rural project,or a specific, environmentally-sensitive location along a longer project. In these cases,the project may be segmented to determine the level of impact and project type in order to arrive at the appropriate Mn/DOT cost participation factors to address specific project settings and features. In these cases,participation factors and costs are considered on a segment-by-segment basis. Mn/DOT aesthetic cost participation is limited to the sum of participation . for all segments. ix. Aesthetic Funding Considerations Participation percentages for aesthetic elements will not be modified or adjusted based on bid prices of the successful bidder. Federal aid community enhancement funds which may be available through the ATP procedures,and the Mn/DOT Landscape Partnerships Program should be considered as options for funding of aesthetic improvements. 3.g. Utilities Owned by Local Units of Government In conjunction with a trunk highway construction project,the most frequently encountered utilities owned by local units of government include,but are not limited to: • Sanitary sewer systems; • Water mains and associated hydrants,gate valves and manholes; and, • Section I D3g 6-51 Guidelines for Cooperative Page 49 of 89 Construction Projects DS11.doc • Locally-owned street lighting. • Based on Minnesota Statutes § 161.46, the following factors determine which agency is responsible for the cost of the adjustment or relocation of utilities owned by a local unit of government. 1. Local Responsibility for Utilities Owned by Local Units of Government • If the affected utility is within trunk highway right-of-way by permit.the local unit of government is responsible for 100%of the cost of all utility relocation or adjustment required for the trunk highway project, except as defined in section ID3g2 below. • The local unit of government is responsible for 100%of the costs associated with improvements or betterment of existing facilities. Betterment occurs when the relocated facility is upgraded or replaced with functionally superior facilities. • The local unit of government is 100%responsible for costs associated with the removal and replacement or the relocation of items, such as street signs,parking meters or impacts by the utility work which would not have been impacted by Mn/DOT • construction. • The local unit of government is responsible for 100%of the cost of utility relocation and adjustments that are necessitated by construction in which Mn/DOT has no cost participation. 2. Mn/DOT Responsibility for Utilities Owned by Local Units of Government • If the affected utility was in place prior to Mn/DOT taking over the roadway as a trunk highway,Mn/DOT will pay for the utility relocation or adjustment in accordance with the first move clause as defined in Minnesota Rules 8810.3300. Mn/DOT will the relocation of`in kind,' functionally-equivalent facilities only, and will not pay for the additional costs associated with betterment. The local unit of government must furnish data regarding the installation of the existing utility to invoke the provisions of this clause. Mn/DOT may include the relocation work in the contract,or pay the local unit of government to accomplish this work.Mn/DOT will not pay for utility relocation or adjustment in accordance with the first move clause when the Guidelines for Cooperative Section I D3g 2 • Construction Projects Page 50 of 89 6-52 DS11.doc • relocation is necessitated by construction without Mn/DOT participation. The local unit of government is responsible for 100%of the cost of any utility adjustment or relocation that is necessitated by such construction. • The agency that initiates a project pays for 100%of all utility relocations necessitated by construction on interstate trunk highways,except in cases where the majority of project costs are shared then the utility relocation costs will be shared. • Previous agreement language that provides for payment of adjusted or relocated utilities by Mn/DOT.The local unit of government must be able to furnish such agreement language regarding the installation of the existing utility to invoke the provisions of this clause. • Mn/DOT will participate up to 100%for the cost of adjustment and the relocation of locally-owned utilities that is necessitated by work on local roadways,locally-owned frontage roads and locally-owned property or easements on a Mn/DOT initiated and let project,in which the Right-of-Way is taken over by Commissioner Orders. Mn/DOT participation in such costs will be in the same ratio as Mn/DOT participation in the work icausing the need for the locally-owned utility adjustment or relocation. Information regarding whether a municipally-owned utility is within trunk highway right-of-way by permit or is subject to the first move clause is available from Mn/DOT's Utility Agreements Engineer. 3. Construction Engineering The agency that supervises the construction of a cooperative construction project will be reimbursed by the non-supervising agency for construction engineering costs at a rate of 8%of the non- supervising agency's total construction cost responsibility,including any federal aid participation. Payment for construction engineering costs includes the cost of inspection,materials testing, surveying and staking,and construction administration required for the cooperative construction project. • Section 11 A3 Page 51 of 89 6-53 Guidelines for Cooperative Construction Projects DS11.doc The non-supervising agency may undertake the following • construction engineering activities,when agreed to by the supervising agency,at the following percent reduction in the non- supervising agency's construction engineering costs: • Construction Inspection 2% • Surveys and Staking 2% • Materials Inspection 1% The minimum construction engineering reimbursement to the supervising agency for construction administration will be 3%of the non-supervising agency's total construction cost responsibility, including any federal aid participation. 4. Maintenance The maintenance responsibilities of the local unit of government for cooperative construction projects will be documented in the cooperative construction agreement or in a separate maintenance agreement. Maintenance responsibilities include all necessary costs, personnel and materials. The following maintenance responsibilities will apply to Mn/DOT cooperative construction projects when included in the cooperative • construction agreement. Maintenance responsibilities other than those identified in this policy,continuation of pre-existing agreement conditions, or ongoing cost reimbursement for maintenance activities will require a separate maintenance agreement. 4.a. Roadway • Mn/DOT will be responsible for maintenance activities associated with all trunk highway roadway items, trunk highway parking if located immediately adjacent to the trunk highway driving lanes within the shoulder area,ramps and loops at interchanges,and other portions of the trunk highway right-of-way. • Local units of government will be responsible for maintenance activities associated with all roadways under local jurisdiction, including local roadways constructed or reconstructed due to impacts associated with trunk highway construction, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 161.24, subdivision 5. Local units of government will also be responsible for maintenance activities associated with parking lanes located beyond the shoulder area of the Guidelines for Cooperative Section II A4a • Construction Projects Page 52 of 89 6-54 DS11.doc • trunk highway,approach roadways to interchanges and grade separations up to the bridge approach panels,frontage roads, and all other portions of the local road right-of-way. 4.b. Bridge • For interchange or grade separation bridges under Mn/DOT jurisdiction,Mn/DOT will be responsible for bridge inspection,all structure-related maintenance,including painting,re-decking and rehabilitation of the bridge,including the deck,rails, sidewalk and supporting structural elements,and structurally-supported signing on the bridge.The local unit of government will be responsible for such items if the bridge is under local jurisdiction. • If the approach roadways to a bridge are under local jurisdiction,the local unit of government will be responsible for all non-structural maintenance activities on the bridge,including but not limited to, keeping the roadway,bridge deck,shoulders,medians, gutters, sidewalks and trails clear of ice, snow,litter and debris,appropriate disposal of such material,pavement markings,guardrail,and non- structurally supported signing.Mn/DOT will be responsible for such items if the approach roadway is a trunk highway. • • Lighting and aesthetic items that may be included on bridges will have maintenance cost responsibilities in accordance with applicable sections of this policy. 4.c. Drainage Routine drainage maintenance is defined as any work needed to preserve the existing drainage facility and to prevent conditions such as flooding, erosion, sedimentation or accelerated deterioration of the system which would cause adverse safety,environmental,traffic capacity,aesthetic or cost concerns to governmental and regulatory agencies,and the public. Such work typically does not require replacement of existing drainage infrastructure and may include removal of sediment,debris,vegetation, and ice from structures,grates and pipes,repair of minor erosion problems,and minor structure and pipe repair. Non-routine drainage maintenance is defined as replacement, reconstruction,rehabilitation,or improvement of portions of storm water drainage infrastructure such as castings,manhole or catch basin structures,and pipe segments or aprons,including rip-rap. 6-55 • Guidelines for Cooperative Section II A4c Construction Projects Page 53 of 89 DWI.doc • Mn/DOT is responsible for routine drainage maintenance of drainage • elements located on freeway right-of-way, on controlled access trunk highway right-of-way,on partially-controlled access trunk highway right-of-way not within corporate city limits,or as determined by the District if safety is a concern. This includes all portions of trunk highway-to-trunk highway interchanges and other interchange ramps and loops, and all trunk highway right-of-way outside incorporated cities not covered by previous permit or agreement. • Mn/DOT is responsible for non-routine drainage maintenance of all storm water drainage system elements located on trunk highway right-of-way. • Local units of government are responsible for routine drainage maintenance of drainage system elements located on uncontrolled or partially controlled access trunk highway right-of-way within incorporated cities, frontage road right-of-way,and local roadway right-of-way or private property. • Costs for maintenance of ponds, including sediment control and dredging,will be proportioned to Mn/DOT and local units of government at the same ratio as costs for construction of the ponds. The lead agency to initiate maintenance will be the owner of the pond right-of-way. Execution of a maintenance agreement is • necessary before maintenance costs are incurred. 4.d. Lighting, Signals,and Signing i. Lighting • Maintenance of electrical lighting systems includes everything within the system,from the point of attachment to the power source or utility,to the last light on the feed point,including but not limited to,re-lamping of lighting units,repair or replacement of all damaged luminaire glassware, loose connections, luminaires when damaged or when ballasts fail,photoelectric control on luminaires,defective starter boards,damaged fuse holders,blown fuses,knocked down poles including wiring within the poles,damaged poles,pullboxes,underground wire, damaged bases,equipment pad,installation of approved splices or replacement of wires,repair or extending of conduit, lighting cabinet maintenance including photoelectric cell,electrical distribution system,and painting of poles and other equipment. Guidelines Section II A4di Construction for ProCooperative Page 54 of 89 jects 6-56 • DS11.doc • . Power costs include all energy costs associated with the lighting system after the system has been turned on. • The local unit of government will be responsible tfor 100%of the maintenance and power costs for all lighting systems installed at the 100%Mn/DOT participation,for lighting li lighting systems local agency's request,and for all non-freeway g limsy systems of the installed on the trunk highway within corporate city local unit of government. • The local unit of government will be responsible for 100%iof the maintenance of all non-standard(aesthetic)Mn/DOT equipment. ii. Signals operational responsibilities of The division of maintenance and°p highway will be divided into two signal systems located on trunk g11 classes: cities of the first class,o operational responus billties are government. Maintenance and p shared throughout the life of the traffic r signal and maintenance Cities of the first class typically have traffic engineering departments to operate and maintain signal systems. s most e cities are • typically more familiar with local traffic patterns gn operation operate and maintain these ed as follows:systems. Signal system op and maintenance is deft • Mn/DOT will provide major and minor maintenance of the signal system and will operate the system at trunk highway intersections with a trunk highway. • For traffic signal systems on trunk highway intersections with local roads within cities of the first class,the city shall provide traffic signal system major maintenance,minor maintenance and operation. • For all other signals or trunk highway intersections,Mn/DOT al major maintenance. Mn/DOT will will provide traffic signal The local unit of government provide signal system operation. provide minor maintenance. • Cooperative Section U A4dii Guidelines for Coop Page 55 of 89 Construction Projects DS11.doc • Relamping of a signal and cleaning the reeflectorstand lens, for all the slip al he the lamp any intersection roadway lighting, final heads and • In certain larger local units of government,Mn/DOT have the local unit of government by elect to maintain and operate the signal systmm helloleunit of government must have a qualified traffic engineer in its employ. The local unit of government must have proven capabilities to the satisfaction of Mn/DOT,including maintenance facilities, service equipment, standby equipment,and capable service personnel. Mn/DOT will reimburse the local unit of government for Mn/DOT's share of the major maintenance work as s ecifi in the paragraph above. A separate reimbursable maintenanceed and operation agreement must be executed. • In the case of coordinated signal systems, the maintenance and operation of these systems will be determined on a negotiated basis. The coordinated signal system should be maintained operated by one agency,especially in the case of computer-and monitored systems. The agency that is responsible for the most intersections in the coordinated system will typically be the agency responsible for the maintenance,operation, timing and coordination of the coordinated traff c signal system. • When the to lIIlII local unit of.government is responsible for maintenance and operation of the coordinated traffic signal system,it must have a qualified traffic engineer in its employ. The local unit of government must have proven capabilities to the satisfaction of the Mn/DOT including maintenance facilities, service equipment,standby equipment,and capable service personnel. Either Mn/DOT or the local unit of government will be reimbursed for the actual cost of maintaining the signal system for which the other agency is responsible. A separate reimbursable maintenance agreement will be prepared for these situations. iii. Signing • Mn/DOT will maintain all signs installed by locations: on 3'Mn/DOT at the roadways between the ends of all ap sand advance local signs at interchanges. junction Guidelines for Cooperative Construction Projects Section II A4diii DS11.doc Page 56 of 89 III • • Local units of government will be responsible for signs installed on local roadway right-of-way and on Mn/DOT right-of-way by permit. • Trail blazing signs installed on local streets will be installed and maintained by the local unit of government. 4.e. Sidewalks,Bikeways,and Multi-use Trails • Costs for routine maintenance of all sidewalks,bikeways,and other multi-use trails,including but not limited to patching,plowing, sweeping,debris removal,mowing,trimming,signs and pavement markings will be the responsibility of the local unit of government. • Sidewalks,bikeways,and other multi-use trails included in Mn/DOT-owned rest areas will be maintained by Mn/DOT. • Bikeways located,on trunk highway shoulders will be maintained by Mn/DOT. • Costs for non-routine maintenance such as resurfacing,seal coating, and bridge rehabilitation,will be proportioned to Mn/DOT and the local unit of government in the same ratio as the initial cost of • construction. 4.f. Aesthetics For cooperative construction projects with aesthetic elements, maintenance will be in accordance with the provisions of this policy. Aesthetic improvements made under other programs or agreement types, such as Landscape Partnerships,may have different maintenance responsibilities. • Mn/DOT will be responsible for maintenance activities for all aesthetic elements located within the roadway and shoulder portion of all trunk highways.Mn/DOT will be responsible for all maintenance activities associated with aesthetic elements included within the trunk highway right-of-way for freeways, expressways, and rural trunk highways outside of incorporated cities,except for: • Benches,planters,landscaping,pavement,surface treatments,and other aesthetic features and treatments on local roads,under or on top of trunk highway bridges. 111 Guidelines for Cooperative Section II A4f 6-59 Construction Projects Page 57 of 89 DS11.doc • Lighting, signals,and signing in accordance with this policy. • These costs will be the responsibility of the local unit of government. • Local units of government will be responsible for all other maintenance activities for aesthetic elements of cooperative construction projects. II. PROCEDURES A. Agreement Procedures 1. Minimum Agreement Amount A cooperative construction agreement will not be required for a Mn/DOT construction contract when the local unit of government's total estimated cost for construction and construction engineering is less than$5,000. In such instances,Mn/DOT will assume 100%of what would otherwise be local costs. Mn/DOT will not participate in the cost of a local project when Mn/DOT's share of cooperative construction and/or construction engineering is less than $5000. Justification for exceptions to this policy must be documented by the local unit of government and submitted as a request to the Transportation • District Engineer. If the Transportation District Engineer believes that costs associated with preparation of a cooperative construction agreement for Mn/DOT cost participation of less than$5000 is justified,the district will submit a request for an exception from this policy in accordance with section IIE. 2. Pro-Rata Items The cost of the following pay items will be pro-rated among participating agencies in the same ratio as their share of the project to the total project cost. 2021.501 Mobilization Lump Sum 2031.501 Field Office,Type Each 2031.503 Field Laboratory, Type Each 2563.601 Traffic Control Lump Sum In most cases,maintenance and restoration of haul roads will no longer be pro-rated because of small costs typically associated with this item.Items such as computer equipment, cellular phones,pick-up truck, etc.will have no direct local participation. Guidelines for Cooperative Section II A2 • Construction Projects Page 58 of 89 6-60 DS11.doc • These costs are typically included in construction engineering costs. The pro-rata value assigned to each cost split shown in the plans is determined by dividing the dollar value of work associated with that split by the total dollar value of the contract, less the pro-rata items. The pro-rata percentage assigned to each cost split is determined using estimated quantities and estimated prices, and does not change through-out the life of the contract. The actual dollar amount paid by each split is adjusted by applying the split percentage to the actual contract bid price for the pro-rata items. 3. Cost Estimates during Project Development Responsibility for project cost should be determined by Mn/DOT's project manager,in coordination with Mn/DOT's Municipal Agreements Engineer and local unit of government representatives, early in the project development process. Local units of government must often plan their budgets for several years prior to a project to determine funding sources and to generate funds to pay for local shares of cooperative construction projects. Responsibilities for local cost participation must be kept current during project development. Local responsibility and associated costs for cooperative projects will be provided to each local unit of government by Mn/DOT's • project manager each time project cost estimates are updated,in accordance with Mn/DOT's"Cost Estimating Procedures during Project Development." A document outlining items and their associated costs for each local unit of government will also be included with the information provided when municipal approval is requested by Mn/DOT. Copies of cost estimate information provided to the local unit of government will also be provided to the Municipal Agreements Engineer. Care must be taken to clearly establish that cost estimates during project development,including the share identified as local responsibility,are preliminary and are subject to change until actual contract prices are established in the successful bid and award of contract. 4. Two-party and Multi-party Agreements Two-party agreements are written to define the costs and maintenance of cooperative construction items with one agency other than Mn/DOT. Multi-party agreements are written for traffic control signal systems,where costs and maintenance responsibility other than Mn/DOT's is shared by more than one local unit of government through mutual agreement. These agreements are prepared by the District Traffic Office or the Municipal Agreements Unit. • Guidelines for Cooperative Section II A4 6-61 Construction Projects Page 59 of 89 DS11.doc 5. Federal Aid Funds Applied to the Local Cost Share Mn/DOT encourages coordinated development of cooperative construction projects that may involve application of federal aid funds. Cooperative construction projects with federal aid funds must be developed in accordance with ATP procedures and applicable provisions of this policy. In order for the local share of a cooperative construction project to receive federal aid funds,the project must be selected by the ATP and identified in the STIP. The federal aid funds to be applied to the local share must be identified in a separate line in the STIP that indicates the amount of federal aid and local funds. Increased costs that may affect the amount of federal aid funds necessary for the project shall be addressed in accordance with ATP procedures. For cooperative construction projects let by Mn/DOT,the agreement and "Schedule I"must be prepared to identify the total local unit of government liability for the local share. This total liability includes both the local funds and the federal aid funds that will be applied to the local share of the cooperative construction project.When the local unit of government is invoiced for the local portion of the total local liability identified in the agreement,the trunk highway construction account is credited for the federal aid share of the total local liability of funds that Mn/DOT will collect from the federal government on behalf of the local unit of government. Mn/DOT reserves the right to determine actual funding to be applied to all shares of • projects let and administered by Mn/DOT. In the unlikely event that federal aid became unavailable for the local portion of the cooperative construction project,the local unit of government would be responsible for the total local liability. These requirements are necessary to meet the legislative intent of the trunk highway construction account. At completion of the contract and with the determination of final costs,the state's construction account will be credited accordingly. 6. Cost Share Information in Construction Plans Cooperative construction cost participation must be identified in the construction plan. Quantities on the estimated quantities sheets must be split into as many columns as there are separate funding groups. Each group will have its own column. The factors that determine funding groups are funding source,project number, and percentage of participation. Each different combination of these factors requires a separate funding group. Specific funding information should be included at the top of each group column in the following manner: Guidelines for Cooperative Section II A6 6-62 • Construction Projects Page 60 of 89 DS11.doc • • F aid rticipatin should indgr When there is more than one Federal Project Number,each separate federal aid funding source is shown as a separate group and the appropriate Federal Project Number should be indicated. • Mn/DOT participation should be indicated by showing the percentage of Mn/DOT participation for each group.When there is more than one State Project Number, each separate state funding source is a separate group and the appropriate State Project Number should be indicated. • Local participation should be indicated by showing the percentage of local participation, and if applicable,the State Aid Project Number.The absence of a State Aid Project Number indicates the use of 100%local funds. • Lump sum agreements should be identified in the"Construction Notes" of the construction plan. • The funding percentages must total 100%for each column. • When space is limited at the top of the column,footnotes may be used. • The tabulation sheets within the construction plan should list quantities attributable to each funding group,to act as supporting documentation for the funding participation shown on the estimated quantities sheets. Funding information is also included on the construction plan title sheet.Each Federal Project Number, State Project Number,and State Aid Project Number must be shown. For further information regarding cost participation information required in the construction plan,see the"Metro Sample Plan,"Mn/DOT Design Scene, or contact Mn/DOT's Design Liaison Engineer,the Funding Program Coordinator in the Mn/DOT Office of Investment Management,or Mn/DOT's Municipal Agreements Engineer. 7. Procedures and Responsibilities for Cooperative Construction Projects These procedures apply to both Mn/DOT-initiated and locally-initiated projects. • S7 6-63 Guidelines for Cooperative S a 61 of ection II A l Construction Projects 9 DS11.doc Mn/DOT considers the Mn/DOT-funded portion of a locally-initiated • cooperative construction project to be a trunk highway project and must review and approve the construction plan and right-of-way acquisition procedures. This approval must be provided before the cooperative construction agreement can be completed. 7.a. STIP A cooperative construction project must be included in the STIP to insure that Mn/DOT and local agency funding is identified for the project. 7.b. Resolution A resolution, indicating the local unit of government's intention to make certain improvements an d requesting Mn/DOT cost participation in the project, or approving local participation in a Mn/DOT-initiated project, must be adopted by the governing body of the local unit of government and concurred with by the district. 7.c. District Responsibilities The district will assign a project manager to facilitate development of locally-initiated projects. The district project manager will guide the • preparation of plans an d special provisions and will arrange for Mn/DOT programming of locally-initiated projects. The district will furnish the local unit of government's engineer and/or their consultant with a copy of these procedures early in the project development stage. Local units of government will communicate with the district project manager on all matters relating to project funding and the cooperative construction agreement. 7.d. District Review of Locally-initiated Projects The process for district review locally-initiated projects of is somewhat is variable. The project will be submitted to the district project manager for review by associated district functional groups. In general, district functional groups will review the following: • Plan; • Proposal and/or special provisions; • Engineer's estimate; • Drainage area maps and hydraulics computations,if applicable; Guidelines for Cooperative Section II A7d • 6-64 Construction Projects Page 62 of 89 DS11.doc 9 • • Soils/geotechnical report indicating pavement recommendations or computations; • Right-of-way documentation for all work included in the project. Documentation is requested for all permanent,temporary, slope or drainage easements; • All approved permits from the Corps of Engineers,NPDES,DNR, PCA,watershed districts,and other regulatory bodies; and, • Laboratory testing services request form. The functional groups will review the plan and supporting documents and will provide comments to the district project manager. The district project manager will compile all the comments and return them to the local agency for incorporation and revision. The plan,the proposal,and the engineer's estimate will then be submitted to the district project manager to route for final approval and agreement preparation. 7.e. District Approval of Locally-initiated Projects The local unit of government will review the project documents listed in Section IIA7d with the district. Changes to the project documents • pertaining to portions of the project with Mn/DOT cost participation,or affecting the trunk highway,will be made by the local unit of government when requested by the district. Approval of project documents by the district requires the same signatures on the construction plan title sheet as on a Mn/DOT-initiated project. If a local unit of government is using state aid funds for a construction project, these documents must also be reviewed and approved by the District State Aid Engineer. 7.f. Project Turn-in to Mn/DOT Central Office After approval of a locally-initiated project by the district,the following documents are forwarded by the district to the Signal Unit,Office of Traffic Engineering,for stand-alone signal projects, or to the Municipal Agreements Engineer for all other projects. The following documents must be submitted a minimum of 12 weeks before project letting to begin preparation of the cooperative construction agreement: • Original plan and three copies; • Two copies of the proposal; • A colored layout which shows Mn/DOT and local cost participation; • uidelines for Cooperative Section II A7f 6-65 Guidelines p Construction Projects Page 63 of 89 DS11.doc • A schedule of quantities and an estimate of construction costs for the • cooperative construction; • An itemized cost estimate for the entire contract; and, • A scheduled bid opening or letting date. This date is critical for prioritizing project reviews and agreement preparation. Project turn-in for Mn/DOT-initiated and let projects will be in accordance with present procedures for project turn-in and pre-letting activities. The activities and timeframes associated with agreement preparation are detailed in Appendix D. 7.g. Construction Plan Review Mn/DOT's Design Liaison Engineer will review the cooperative construction plan within 30 days of receipt by Mn/DOT's Municipal Agreements Engineer. Changes to the project documents pertaining to portions of the project with Mn/DOT cost participation,or affecting the trunk highway,will be made by the district or local unit of government when requested by the Design Liaison Engineer. Following completion of any such changes, and provision of the revised plan to Mn/DOT's Design Liaison Engineer,Mn/DOT approval of the plan will occur • within five days. The Municipal Agreements Engineer will complete the cooperative agreement based on the approved construction plan. After the plan has been reviewed and approved by Mn/DOT,the original plan will be returned to the local unit of government. 7.h. Advertising for Bids Mn/DOT shall not advertise a Mn/DOT-let cooperative construction project until the agreement has been signed by the local agency. A local unit of government shall not advertise for bids until Mn/DOT has reviewed and approved the plans and proposal on a locally-let cooperative construction project,and has prepared a cooperative construction agreement for the project. Guidelines for Cooperative Section II A7h 6-66 • Construction Projects Page 64 of 89 DS11.doc • 7.i. Award of Contract An itemized abstract of all bids received and a certified copy of the low bidder's proposal will be sent to the Transportation District Engineer, along with the local unit of government's recommendation for the award of the project. The construction contract shall not be awarded, and the contractor will not be allowed to commence construction activities,prior to complete execution of the cooperative construction agreement and concurrence by all parties in that award. Minnesota Statutes §16A.15,subdivision 3, states the following: "An obligation may not be incurred against any fund, allotment, or appropriation unless the commissioner has certified a sufficient unencumbered balance or the accounting system shows sufficient allotment or encumbrance balance in the fund, allotment,or appropriation to meet it....An expenditure or obligation authorized or incurred in violation of this chapter is invalid and ineligible for payment until made valid. A payment made in violation of this chapter is illegal. An employee authorizing or making the payment,or • taking part in it,and any person receiving any part of the payment, are jointly and severally liable to the State for the amount paid or received." An obligation is incurred when construction begins on a cooperative project that is let by a local unit of government. If an agreement is not fully executed, and the necessary funds encumbered at that time,a violation of Minnesota Statutes § 16A.15, subdivision 3,has occurred. A violation form then must be filled out and submitted to Mn/DOT's Director of the Budget Section and the Deputy Commissioner/Chief Financial Officer for approval before the necessary funds can be encumbered. This form explains why the violation occurred,and what will be done in the future to prevent similar violations. A violation of Minnesota Statutes § 16A.15, subdivision 3,also occurs when the cost of Mn/DOT participation construction covered under an agreement exceeds the amount of the funds encumbered for the agreement. A violation form must then be filled out and processed as explained in the preceding paragraph. To avoid this situation whenever possible,Mn/DOT's Municipal Agreements Unit adds a contingency amount to each encumbrance for a cooperative construction agreement to cover the cost of overruns of estimated quantities of Mn/DOT cost • 6-67 Guidelines for Cooperative Section II A71 Construction Projects Page 65 of 89 DSI I.doc participation construction and/or Mn/DOT-approved additional 1lI construction. 7.j. Payment by a Local Unit of Government to Mn/DOT After award of the construction contract,Mn/DOT will revise the Schedule"I"cost estimates based on actual bid prices per the applicable method of computing cost shares,and will forward the fully-executed agreement to the local unit of government with a notice that an invoice from Mn/DOT will be forthcoming. Mn/DOT's Department of Finance will invoice the local unit of government per the terms of the agreement. 7.k. Payment by Mn/DOT to a Local Unit of Government Advance payment by Mn/DOT to a local unit of government is made after the award of the construction contract, and upon receipt of an invoice from the local unit of government. The amount of the advance payment will be the total amount of Mn/DOT's estimated construction costs,based on contract unit prices,but will not include payment for construction engineering. Final payment is made after completion of all the work in the contract, final payment to the contractor, and acceptance of the work by the Transportation District Engineer. Procedures for payment are included • in the cooperative construction agreement and in the payment processing package which is furnished to the local unit of government by the Municipal Agreements Engineer. The amount of the final payment will be Mn/DOT's final construction costs,plus the related construction engineering costs, less the amount of any previous payment. 7.1. As-built Construction Plans Submitted by a Local Unit of Government Upon completion of the cooperative construction,the local unit of government shall furnish the Transportation District Engineer with an as-built plan for all construction performed on Mn/DOT right-of-way. B. Methods for Computing Cost Shares The methods that may be used in a cooperative project agreement to identify amounts that Mn/DOT and local units of government will pay for their respective shares of a cooperative construction project. Agreements may be written using one or a combination of any of the methods below. Guidelines for Cooperative Section II B • Construction Projects Page 66 of 89 6-68 DS11.doc be difficult to identify or keep track of a portion of an • a items. For that portion,a lump sum amount In some instances,it may portion,a schedule I or a percentage ntageipf co tr based on pay work,for the other p or a percentage of construction costs may might fit the situation. ade to the lighting system. An example may be defined in the case of an upgrunit or system in a lump sum Mn/DOT would pay for 50%of standard lighting (based on estimate),the pay items for the non reflect lighting unit or credit(b agreement would system would be 100%local. The agrparking lane er example would be watermain and the city share of p Another would have 100%of the watermain construction a items of schedule le IThe city sum for the 10%paving schedule I,and a lump sum based on bid or lump the parking lane construction. 1. Composite Percentage in the cooperative construction project is policy.Estimated quantities determined a fined in participation compute the as shown n i t the plan,a and in thee estimated of prices,are used to comp as shown in the plan,an agency's cost preliminary cost of each agency's participation.Each re cost participation is then total project ost,llesothe cost of any items mate s used included in a seta ra e traffic total p agreement.This preliminary percentage in a separate traffic signal agr agreement.The cooperative construction • prepare the cooperative construction a d agreed to by resolution from each agreement is signed by each agency local unit of government before the contract can be let out for bids. After bids are received,each agency's percentage will be revised using the of estimated quantities,as shown in the p lan,and using the contract unit prices percentages will not change the successful bidder. These revised final erative agreement is revised throughout the life of the project.The coop all agencies prior to the contract d for accordingly and must be executed by enc having work p awarded to the successful bidder.Each agency agency performing the work them will then advance their cost share to the ag Y p before any costs can All supplemental agreements and change orders that are mined in sehe pr ID t m of must identify the apppropriate cost participation,as this policy,for the work contained therein. • erative Section 11131 NMI Guidelines for Co Projects Page 67 of 89 Construction Proj DS11.doc After completion of the project, each agency's final cost participation amount be determined using the final percentage applied to the final ro'ectont • plus any applicable supplemental agreements and change orders. The costs, difference between the advanced amount and the fmal amount will be computed and paid to the appropriate agency. This method of computing cost shares is the recommended method for cooperative construction projects. This method greatly reduces the amount of record keeping which is required of construction personnel to most "schedule I"method. document the 2. As-built Quantities(Schedule 1) Each agency's participation in the cooperative construction project is determined in accordance with section ID of this policy.Estimated u as shown in the plan, and in the estimated unit prices, are used to compute preliminary quantities ary cost of each agency's participation. These preliminary p the used to prepare the cooperative construction agreement. The cooperative are construction agreement is signed by each agency from each local unit of government before the contract clan be let out bids.cooperative agreement must be executed by all agencies prior to for bids. contract being awarded to the successful bidder. e After bids are received, each agency's cost will be revised using the estimated quantities,as shown in the plan,and the contract unit the f l • bidder. The preliminary costs are revised accordingly.prices agency the y successful having work performed for them will then advance their cost share of the construction costs to the agency performing the work before any costs can be accrued. All supplemental agreements and change orders that are written to the must identify the appropriate cost participation, as determined in Section ID o this policy, for the work contained therein. of After completion of the project, each agency's final cost participation will be determined using the actual final as-built quantities and the contract unit prices,plus any applicable supplemental agreements,work orders,change orders, "back sheet"adjustments and construction engineering charges. The between the advanced amount and the final amount will be ange computed and paid to the appropriate g e ppropriate agency, Guidelines for Cooperative Construction Projects Section 1162 1111 DS11.doc Page 68 of 89 6-70 • 3. Lump Sum Lump sum agreements are written for a specific dollar amount that is mutually agreed upon by Mn/DOT and the local unit of government before bids are received for the cooperative construction project. When the agreeis mae and thully executed and the construction contract is awarded,payment agreement is closed out. No adjustment in the cost participation is made to reflect contract unit prices or final quantities. This type of agreement is most appropriate when the division of quantities or e work costs by another method is not practical changes the scope of n quantities or th need well-defined and the chance of sign ificant for supplemental agreements is minimal. It should also be considered when an agreement is being prepared f 4. Bid-priced Lump Sum ces This agreement uses the estimated quantities in the plan an the bid pr is used received to determine each agency's costs.A preliminary for the estimate and then revised based upon unit item bid prices. Payment is made after the contract s awarded and d the reflect contract a closed out. adjustment in the cost participa • No quantities. If the scope of the contract work changes significantly,a lump sum agreement may be supplemented or another agreement written to reflect the revised scope of work. 5. Design Build Procedures i. Utility Master Utility Agreement(MUA)is an agreement between three parties; Mn/DOT,the contractor and the utility owner. This agreement is written specifically for the utilities affected by trunk highway construction. These agreements hold the design build contractor,the local unit of government and Mn/DOT accountable for the utility design,relocation,construction and,if requested,betterments. The MUA's detail the roles and responsibilities of all three parties in accomplishing the required utility relocations. As construction requires,a work order is written under the MUA to address the specific project utility relocations. Mn/DOT Utility Agreements Office writes this type of agreement. • erative Section II B51 Guidelines for Coop Page 69 of 89 Construction Projects DS11.doc ii. Other project costs • Local unit of government costs for other elements of the project are included in a cooperative agreement signed by Mn/DOT and the local unit of government. If costs are small compared to the overall project costs, a lump sum based on engineer's estimate is the most simplistic methodology. C. Policy Liaisons and Compliance Oversight The Municipal Agreements Engineer, Office of Technical Support,and the Funding Program Coordinator, Office of Investment Management,are liaison contacts and provide compliance oversight for application of this policy. District project managers are encouraged to work in coordination with the policy liaisons to determine cost participation responsibilities and to identify funding sources early in the project development process. Ongoing coordination is also encouraged.At a minimum, copies of cost estimate information provided to local units of government shall also be provided to the Municipal Agreements Engineer. Policy liaison activities and compliance oversight will primarily occur in three following areas. 1. STIP Identification • The Office of Investment Management will work with districts to ensure that cost estimates for Mn/DOT and local shares of projects are correctly identified in the STIP and that appropriate anticipated funding sources are identified for each participating agency share. 2. Development of Cost Participation Responsibilities The Office of Investment Management and the Municipal Agreements Unit are available to provide assistance with application of this policy during project development as requested by the districts. These offices will also review documentation of project cost responsibilities and notify the districts of cost participation responsibilities that may be inconsistent with this policy. Guidelines for Cooperative Section H C2 • Construction Projects Page 70 of 89 6-72 DS11.doc 3. Plan Information and Agreement Preparation During preparation of cooperative construction agreements,Mn/DOT's Municipal Agreements Engineer will ensure that construction plan information and cooperative agreement documents are consistent with the STIP,with the cost participation responsibilities developed during project development,and with this policy. D. Policy Revisions This policy is maintained by the Municipal Agreements Unit in Mn/DOT's Office of Technical Support. Revisions to this policy will be made approximately every three years to correspond with implementation of new federal funding acts and at mid-points of those acts.Revisions to this policy may also be initiated by districts and offices in response to changing standards,regulatory requirements,or to other policies or project development procedures. Revisions to this policy shall be developed in coordination with the Municipal Agreements Engineer, affected Mn/DOT Offices,districts and local units of government. As a minimum,review of proposed policy revisions will be provided through the Technical Memorandum"Yellow Sheet Process"and through State Aid for Local Transportation. • Other review and coordination for development of proposed policy revisions may be necessary. Significant policy revisions will be presented to Mn/DOT's Transportation Program Investment Committee for concurrence and recommendation for approval by Mn/DOT's Senior Management Team(SMT). Final approval of such policy revisions is by SMT. E. Exception Procedures Justification for exceptions to the application of this policy shall be documented by the district, submitted by the Transportation District Engineer to the Municipal Agreements Unit,who will forward the request to Mn/DOT's Director of Operations for concurrence,and forwarded to Mn/DOT's Director of Engineering Services for approval. The merits of such requests will be determined on a case- by-case basis. F. Other Types of Agreements 1. Landscape Partnership This type of agreement is written in conjunction with the Community Roadside Enhancement Partnership Program that provides for landscape design services and financial assistance to applicants to help beautify state • Guidelines for Cooperative Section II F1 6-73 Construction Projects Page 71 of 89 DS11.doc highway right-of-way. Landscape partnership agreements reimburses the • applicant for the purchasing of landscape materials to be planted by the applicant in accordance with Mn/DOT-approved plans. Applicants include home rule charter and statutory cities or towns. Mn/DOT's Landscaping Unit administers all application requests,and the Municipal Agreements Unit writes the agreement. Funding is programmed through the district and encumbered and paid by the Municipal Agreements Unit. 2. Joint Powers This type of agreement is with one or more local units of government, other states,or the federal government and is written to share resources,do work for each other, share work,or allow units joint or cooperative execution of any power common to the contracting parties. 3. Interagency This type of agreement is written between two state agencies, such as the Department of Natural Resources or the Department of Administration. 4. Maintenance This type of agreement is written with another road authority to transfer maintenance responsibilities and to provide payment for those responsibilities. • A maintenance agreement is also required when pre-existing agreement conditions,or otherwise negotiated maintenance responsibilities,differ from maintenance responsibilities identified in this policy. These agreements may be referred to as Technical Assistance agreements. Each District offices writes maintenance agreements. Funds are encumbered and paid by each district. 5. Detour This type of agreement is written with another road authority for a local roadway that the district has decided to use as an official detour route,in accordance with Minnesota Statutes §161.25. The districts involve all appropriate road authorities in the selection of an official detour route. Once established,the detour will become a temporary trunk highway for the duration of the detour. The detour route and payments are determined in accordance with the 1990 Detour Management Study Report. The Municipal Agreements Unit will write complex detour agreements,the District will write simple detour agreements. The District will inform the local unit of Guidelines for Cooperative Section II F5 6-74 • Construction Projects Page 72 of 89 DS11.doc • government of the removal of detour signing and the duration of the detour. The Municipal Agreement Unit will encumber the funds,and make the payment.No agreement is written for less than$500. 6. Consultant This type of agreement is for professional technical services that are intellectual in character of that do not involve the provision of supplies or materials;that include consultation analysis,evaluation,prediction,planning or recommendation; and that result in the production of a report or the completion of a task. Consultant agreements are written and administered by Mn/DOT's Consultant Services Office. 7. Technical Assistance This type of agreement is in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 161.39 entitled"Aid to Other Road Authorities and State Departments." These agreements are receivable by Mn/DOT and provide funds to the trunk highway account. These agreements allow Mn/DOT to provide aid to other road authorities in the form of services, such as engineering advice, surveying, engineering design,inspection,and performance of maintenance on any highway,road or bridge. Technical assistance agreements are written in various offices and districts. 8. Partnership This type of agreement is governed by Minnesota Statutes § 174.02 with either a governmental or a non-governmental partner to promote efficiencies in providing governmental services or to further the development of innovation in transportation for the benefit of the citizens of Minnesota. A partnership agreement may involve services "in-kind" or an exchange of resources with a non-governmental party. The legislation requires that Mn/DOT annually report what partnerships were formed and how much money was involved. A receivable partnership agreement, governed by Minnesota Statutes § 174.02 Subdivision 6,requires the establishment of a specific fund to cover the project costs or expenses of the Office or District. The money is used for non-trunk highway purposes. All receivable partnership agreements require the advance payment from the partner. Partnership agreements are usually written by Mn/DOT's Partnership Coordinator,but may be written by Municipal Agreements,Consultant Agreements,or the district. • Section II F8 6-75 Guidelines for Cooperative Sec Construction Projects Page 73 of 89 DS11.doc 9. Unofficial Detour • This type of agreement is written with a local unit of government,most often a township,to allow Mn/DOT to compensate them for increased maintenance costs associated with local or through-traffic using local roads rather than an official detour route that was established as part of a construction or reconstruction project. Increased costs of maintenance on the local roadway, not including improvement costs, are documented by the local road authority and submitted to the Mn/DOT district/division for payment consideration. If the district concurs in the additional costs, an unofficial detour agreement is written to provide payment to the local road authority. If Mn/DOT and the local road authority cannot agree upon the amount of additional maintenance costs that should be paid,the "Gas Tax Method,"used for determining payment for a detour placed on paved roadways,may be used. The average daily traffic volume is used in the Gas Tax Method calculation and is limited to 25%of the traffic volumes diverted from the detoured trunk highway. An agreement or payment will not be written for less than$500. Unofficial Detour Agreements are written by the Municipal Agreements Unit in Mn/DOT's Office of Technical Support. 10. Utility This type of agreement is governed by Minnesota Statutes § 161.45 and §161.46 and Minnesota Rules 8810.3300, subpart 3. Utility agreements are III contracts between private or public utility companies to reimburse or recover the costs associated with relocation due to highway construction. Utility Agreements are prepared by the Utility Agreements Unit in Mn/DOT's Office of Technical Support. 11.Railroad This type of agreement is written with a railroad when a road construction project requires payment to the railroad for services or materials. Agreements are also required when Mn/DOT or the contractor may encroach within the track area,or when there is a potential for equipment encroachment,or when long term maintenance or cost issues arise regarding a crossing or bridge. The office of Freight,Railways and Waterways writes and administers these agreements. 12.State Aid A project with state aid funding requires an agreement in the following circumstances: IIIGuidelines for Cooperative Section II F12 6-76 Construction Projects Page 74 of 89 DS11.doc • • • A Mn/DOT let construction contract with local participation where the local unit of government uses state aid funds for the local share of costs. The Municipal Agreements Unit will write a cooperative construction agreement to receive the state aid funds into the trunk highway fund. • A local agency let contract,using federal-aid e local unit of government to receive writes the agreement which allows federal-aid funds. • A local agency let contract,using state aid funds and trunk highway funds. The State Aid Office writes the agreement. • A Delegated Contract Process(DCP),the State Aid Office writes the funding agreement for the reimbursement of federal funds the there l ocal agency. If the project also involves trunk highway funds, is funds, to cooperative construction agreement written by Municipal Agreements pay the trunk highway funds for the construction. • For force account agreements. The work or materials provided by city agreement to reimburse a local agency for county forces. OS G. Permits Locally-initiated projects on trunk highway right-of-waY dered as cooperathve construction Mn/DOT cost participation are not con projects. Such projects will req�o f e� peep OCe bei ore work review of begin on the trunk highway righ Y hi hwa design the proposed work and its impact on the right-of-way,trunk g Y standards,traffic operations,and safeO.. rTihh P wiaytiapnua�ire maintenance construction operations within Mn/Ds include: responsibilities. Typical permit typ 1. Limited use Required for placement of non-Mn/DOT oowned facilities,such as a locally- owned bicycle trail,on Mn/DOT righ Y 2. Construction Required for local construction or reconstruction of roadwa t ofrela ed items, grading,and other miscellaneous work within Mn/DOT righ - y. Guidelines for Cooperative 2 Page 75 of Section II G 2 Construction Projects DWI.doc 3. Utility • Required for the installation of private and public utilities; including water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer,and lighting,within Mn/DOT right-of-way. These permits are coordinated through the Utility Permit Unit in Mn/DOT's Office of Technical Support. 4. Drainage Required for any increased drainage or other drainage impacts to the trunk highway right-of-way. 5. Access Required for construction modification in design or use of any access to the trunk highway. The initial contact for permit procedures and requirements is made through the District Permit Office or District Right-of-Way Office for limited-use permits. • Guidelines for Cooperative Section H G5 • Construction Projects Page 76 of 89 DS11.doc O••App endix A: Minnesota Constitution,Statutes,and Rules References 1, Constitution tion 2: Establishes a trunk highway system which shall be constructed, Article ed a sec ublic hi ways of the state.(Pages 1,6) improved,and maintained asp � d which-shall be used solely for Article XIV,section 6: Establishes a trunk highway fun the purposes specified in section 2. (Pages 1,6) 2. Statutes a Statutes §16A.15, subdivision 3: Provisions for allotment and encumbrance Mlnnesot Pa a 58 of state funds. ( g ) Minnesota Statutes §103E: Provisions for general drainage. (Page 26) Minnesota Statutes §161.20: Defines the general powers of the Commissioner of es 1,6,76) Transportation. (Pag 161.20,subdivision 2: Permitsehe commissioner to n°r the pake of Minnesota Statutes § overnm arrangements with and cooperate with any g es 1,6,76) effectuating the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 161.20. (Pag tatutes§161.20,subdivision 3: States that the commissioner may expend Minnesota S hi hwa oses. (Page 1,6) trunk highway funds only for trunk g y p tutes 161.21,subdivisions 1 and 2: Definesst to co pe ate with local y to Minnesota Sta § of hi ways undertake studies for�u h studies. (Pag�) �units of government m OT's ability to pay for local roadway work Minnesota Statutes §161.24: Defines Mn/D rovement,or maintenance. (Pages required as a result of trunk�ghway construction,imp 17,44) detours and haul Minnesota Statutes §161.25: Provisions for temporary trunk highway roads. (Page 65) to Statutes §161.28: Provisions for altering a public ditch by construction or Mmneso a e 26) maintenance of a trunk highway(P g Statutes §161.38,subdivision 1: Provides thett rooaad�sauthor for of a y coun,Minnesota eement with the city,or township may enter into an agr a es 1,6,76) of a roadway or structure of greater width or capacity. (P g Guidelines for Cooperative Appendix A2 Page 77 of 89 Construction Projects DS11.doc Minnesota Statutes §161.38, subdivision 3: Defines the construction and maintenance of frontage roads, and provides O algeneral def spate in • frontage road. (Pages 18, 77) definition of a Minnesota Statutes §161.38, subdivision 5: Provides a definition of municipalities as local units of government in this policy. (Page 76) Palities Minnesota Statutes §161.39: Provisions for preparation of technical assistant agreements as aid to other road authorities and state de e departments. (Page 65) Minnesota Statutes §161.45: Relocation of utilities on trunk highway right-of-way.66) � way. (Page Minnesota Statutes §161.46: Provision for costs associated with adjustment or of utilities. (Pages 44, 66, 76) relocation Minnesota Statutes §162: Establishes a state aid highway system (Page 7) m and a pp orti onment of funds. Minnesota Statutes §169.01, subdivision 62: Defines bicycle routes,which ar e a roadway or shoulder signed to encourage bicycle use. (Page 75) Minnesota Statutes §169.01, subdivision 69: Defines bicycle paths, which are for exclusive or preferential use by people using bicycles and constructed and designed separately from the roadway shoulder. (Page 75) developed Minnesota Statutes §169.01, subdivision 70: Defines bicycle lanes,which • of the roadway or shoulder designed for preferential use by hich a a portion 75) y people using bicycles.cles. (Page Minnesota Statutes §169.01, subdivision 72: Defines bikeways,which collecti includes bicycle lanes, bicycle paths, and bicycle routes. (Page 75) vely Minnesota Statutes §169.04, identifies provisions for parking on trunk highways. 17) � ys. (Page Minnesota Statutes §169. 35: Identifies provisions for parking on trunk highways. 14) gh ys. (Page Minnesota Statutes §174.02, subdivision 6: Provisions for the devel partnership agreements. (Page 66) opment of Minnesota Statutes §174.52,establishes the local road improvement program. (Page 12) )Minnesota Statutes § 446A.085: Establishes a transportation rev olving loan fund. (Page Guidelines for Cooperative Construction Projects Appendix A2 • DS11.doc Page 78 of 89 6-80 • 3. Rules Minnesota Rules § 8810.3300: Provisions for costs associated with utility relocation associated with trunk highways. (Pages 45,66) Minnesota Rules § 8820: Provisions for state aid highway design practices. (Page 75) • Guidelines for Cooperative Appendix A3 6-80a Construction Projects Page 79 of 89 DS11.doc Appendix B • Mn/DOT Cost Participation in Bridge Replacement Before End of Structural Life 100 r 100 90 rA112— 80 ►86 it- U A ce iv; ct 70 Q E z • c.0 60 KEY o ,� a 50 , —- — Present Value of Replacement(PVR) c4--Current Depreciated Value(CDV) G 3040 i3—Theoretical Participation*=(PVR)-(CDV) o �'«"—Mn/DOT Cost Participation a 20 Assumed Bridge Construction Cost Annual Inflation=4.0%and Discount Rate=7.0%. 10 MA0 - E •�• • 'O. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Current Bridge Age Expressed as a Percentage of Expected Structural Life Guidelines for Cooperative Appendix B Construction Projects Page 80 of 89 6-80b DS11.doc • Appendix C: Aesthetic Participation Example The following is an example of how to determine Mn/DOT and local aesthetic participation on a fictitious project. The example project is a two-mile-long project in an urban setting. It is the primary entrance into the community. The first mile is reconstruction in an area with several historic elements and properties. There is a small bridge that will be reconstructed,ns ucted, and small retaining walls,in the first mile of the projec The is major construction expansion from two lanes to along this There enare no unique environmental or historic elements or properties The estimated costs of the project prior to inclusion of costs associated with aesthetic elements are: Cost 300,000 150,000 Bridge cost Retaining wall cost 4 0 Other Mn/DOT project costs , 00,000 00 5,050,000 Local proiect costs Total project costs • The aesthetic participation factors were determined to be: 15% Bridge: Considered as Participation Level A 10% Retaining Walls: Considered as Participation Level A Other Mn/DOT project costs: 2;Reconstruction 3% Mile 1;Participation Level A,Category Mile 2;Participation Level B,Category 1;Major construction 3% The limits of Mn/DOT aesthetic participation were determined as follows: Mn/DOT Mn/DOT Aesthetic Cost Factor Participation Limit 300,000 x 15% 45,000 Bridge Retaining wall 150,000 x 10% 15,000 12 3% 0.000 Other Mn/DOT ro'ect costs 4 000 000 x 180,000 6-80c Total Mn/DOT Aesthetic Participation costs • Guidelines for Coop erative Page 81 of 89 Construction Projects DS11.doc Appendix C The visual assessment process and corridor design guide for the project identified following aesthetic elements and associated estimated costs for the project:ro'ect: the • Bridge aesthetic treatments Retaining wall aesthetic treatments 60,000 Sidewalk and Median Surface Treatments 40,000 Decorative roadway lighting 50,000 Total Cost of Aesthetic Elements 60.000 210,000 For this project, the costs for the desired aesthetic elements were distributed as follows: Aesthetic Mn/DOT Specific Mn/DOT Participation Local Elements Item Partici I ation from Other Pro'ect Costs Partici,ation Bride 45,000 Retainin: Wall 15,000 0 15,000 25,000 Sidewalk and 0 0 Median 50,000 0 Decorative Li:htin: 0 Total 30,000 30,000 60,000 120,000 30,000 This agreement was written to reflect that all items associated with the aesthetic treatments for the bridge,retaining walls, sidewalk,and median are 100%MnDOT associated with decorative lighting are 50%Mn/DOT and 50%local �cip tion. and items • Guidelines for Cooperative Appendix C 6-80d • Construction Projects DS11.doc Page 82 of 89 11111111111111111111111 . • 111111111111110111 Es Nor nouni 111111115 111111111111111 1 1111111111111 I, 111111111111111 i 41111111M A1111111 0 1 1111117111111111111 1111111111111111111111 i 1 111111111111111111111 'B.,- 1111111611111111111111 Va. • i ... cp • < 0, a. iiiiiiIlIIIIIIIIIIIIl1 ,..., a• •liiiiilinillini 8 I 111111113111111- 4 s p1.Lu); . ,5 . z .. 6.,, . 0 . 1, 4 _ 0 28 41 0 c $ 9 v�s Glossary The following definitions apply to cooperative • construction agreements and their development. Advance Construction Funds. A financing tool that is used for project funding. Ad Construction is a federal program that allows an entity to fund a project with their nfune convert it to federal funds at a later date when those federal funds are available. The project must be treated as a federal project from its inception and must receiv w funds and approvals/authorizations prior to letting. a all federal p Applicable Design Criteria. Design criteria applicable to a certain segment as identified in the current version of the bent or portion of a for trunk highway improvements,in Minnesota Rules Mn/DOT for roadways identified State Aid System, and in the American Association of State Design Manual Part I and II Officials "Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets"for the as part of the Highway and Transportation other roadways. Area Transportation Partnership. Area Transportation Partnerships(ATPs)may consist elected officials, local transportation planning ) Y onsist of and state transportation officials within each oa f thege other transportation The ATPs are responsible for integrating the priorities for Highway and Transit partners, eight Mn/DOT State Aid district boundaries. which will use federal aid transportation funds, into a draft Area-wide Transportation al projects, Improvement Program(ATIP). Auxiliary Lane. An auxiliary lane is the portion of a roadway that i and is used for passing, weaving,truck climbing, or other Y is adjacent promote the safe and • efficient movement of through-traffic. A parking lane is not n° e auxiliary lane.to the safe and Bikeway. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 169.01, subdivision 72,a bikeway includes bicycle lanes,which are a portion of a roadway or shoulder designed exclusive or preferential use by people using bicycles fined for 70), bicycle paths,which are facilities designed for exclusive or preferential use by Statutes §169.01, subdivision bicycles and constructed or developed separately from the roadway or shoulder(Minnesota§169.01, subdivision 69), and bicycle routes,which are a roadway Y people using encourage bicycle use(Minnesota Statutes §169.01, subdivision nnesota way or shoulder signed to n 62). Bus Lane. A through-lane provided exclusively for use by buses. Bus Turnout. An area adjacent to a through-lane,but which is not part of a arkin 1 shoulder,and is provided for buses to collect and discharge passengers. p g ant or Guidelines for Cooperative Construction Projects Glossary 1 of 6 1111 DS11.doc Page 84 of 89 6-80f • Cities of the First Class. Those cities having more than 100,000 inhabitants. Commissioner. The Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation or authorized representative. Coo erative Construction Agreement. A cooperative construction agreement is an agreement P between Mn/DOT and a local unit of government purshabnto�o Minnesota at ave aninterest. 61.2 , §161.38 and§161.46,concerning construction in which parties Construction Project. A construction�OTtand a local unit of government. improvements,in which costs are shared between projects may be either locally-or Mn/DOT-initiated. Cooperative e Construction Items. Items in a cooperative construction project that have cost- sharing responsibilities,as identified in accordance with this policy. ected Coordinated Signal Systems. Coordinated traffic signals the consist of interc of the he a signal systems,either pre-timed or traffic actuated,to maximize Management Funds. A financing tool that is used to advance o project in advance of Management is used where a local government constructs Mn/DOT project pays back the local government the projects' scheduled date in Mn/DOT's program. Mn/D P Y durin g the fiscal year in which the project was scheduled to be let for construction in Mn/DOT's • program. Design. Design includes,but is not limited to, the preparation of detailed construction plans, construction specifications and an engineer's cost estimate. District. A district is one of the eight organizational subdivisions and to then en gre tpr Department of Transportation. This term refers to the Metropolitan Minnesota districts. VP S stems. The primary function of these systems is to Emergency Vehicle Preemption(E ) Y green indication to emergency vehicles preempt the normal operation of a traffic signal to give a gr so they may proceed through the intersection more quickly and safely ei with the minimal disruption to normal traffic flow. These systems provide a mutually try movement ass. vehicles,such as local police,fire,ambulance and bus State preference.EVP systems may be installed Other functions include railroad preemption p with new or existing traffic signals. Expressway. A trunk highway of four or more through-lanes with a divided median,at-grade intersections,or a combination of interchanges and at grade intersections,with partial or full access control. • 6-80g Guidelines for Cooperative Page 85 of 89 Construction Projects DS11.doc Glossary 2 of 6 Freeway. A trunk highway on the interstate system or other roadways with fully-controlled access and interchanges,and with grade separations at intersections with other llO and local roadways. trunk highways Frontage Road. A frontage road is a roadway that provides for local traffic circulation while controlling access to the trunk highway. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes §161.38, subdivision 3,a frontage road may be directly adjacent to the main traveled lanes of the trunk highway or may be constructed a reasonable distance from the limits of the trunk highwa y right- of-way if, in the judgment of the commissioner, such location is necessary to eliminate unreasonable circuitry of travel or to provide access to properties otherwise denied access to public highways by construction of the trunk highway. Such frontage roads shall connect at least at one end with the trunk highway or with another public highway. Frontage Road Setback. The distance between a local roadway intersection with a frontage road and the intersection of the same local roadway with a trunk highway. Grade Separation. Any bridge or structure that vertically separates modes of travel, such as bridges carrying a roadway over/under another roadway,or bridges carrying a trail over/under a roadway. Highway,Street,and Road. Highway, street,and road are general terms that denote a way for the use of motor vehicles, including the entire area within the right-of-way. public Interchange. An interchange connects two roadways that are ramps and/or loops provides for turning movements between therroad roadways.tAn nterchan a ma include frontage roads, auxiliary lanes, signals, signs,lights and other items. g may Intersection. An intersection connects two roadways that are not grade-separated.An intersection may include turn lanes, auxiliary lanes, signals, signing, lighting and other items. Island. An island is a raised area constructed between the edges of traffic lanes to separate traffic movements. The island may be located in the median to separate opposing traffic movements or at an intersection for the channelization of turning movements. Intelligent Transportation System(ITS). ITS is the application of advanced technologies, information systems and management techniques to improve the safety and operation of transportation systems. Legs of an Intersection. Legs of an intersection shall mean the physical roadways of the intersection,including interchange ramp legs which require a signal. A leg may carry two-way one-way traffic going either direction or may be exclusively y mid- block pedestrian crossing), y pedestrian traffic(e.g.,mid- Local Roadway. A roadway under the jurisdiction of a local unit of government. Guidelines for Cooperative Glossary 3 • Construction Projects 8 6 DS11.doc 9 6-80h Page 86 of 8 not• Local Unit of Government. A road authority other than Mn/DO Mn/DOT,i ludi nebot Sttmited to a municipality including cities,counties or townships in accordance subdivision 5 or other governing authorities,such as park boards,other state agencies or other states. Locally-initiated Project. A transportation project in which a de need, for,the locals to of accomplish the project is predominantly a determination of, priority Mn/DOT. The State of Minnesota Department of Transportation,acting through the Commissioner of Transportation. Mn/DOT-initiated Project. A transportation project in which the f and priority need,scope,pe,or means to accomplish the project is predominantly a determination Multi-use Trail. A trail designated for use only by bicycles or other non-motorized uses(non- motorized includes electric wheelchairs). in Municipal Agreements Unit. The Mn/DOT Municipal Agreements Unit which is located between the Transportation Building in St.Paul,prepares cooperative Mn/DOT and the local unit of government. Municipal Agreements Engineer. The Municipal Agreements Engineer manages the Mn/DOT • Municipal Agreements Unit. Non-participating Roadway Width. Non-participating away wid fined th is in thespoo i Y of a roadway which is outside the limits of Mn/DOT participation Parkin g Lane. A parking lane is the portion of a roadway adjacent to a through-lane and is used for on-street parking. Programmed Project. A Mn/DOT- or locally-initiated aTransportation rtat that appears Improvement Mn/DOT ogram• District Project Study Plan,Project Work Plan,or State p R Y oadwa . A roadway is the portion of a highway,including through-lanes and turn lanes, on which motor vehicles travel. Shoulder. A shoulder is the portion of the roadway between th purposes edge th eo than onhrrough used lane and the outer curb(or inslope)which is normally P vehicular parking. Sidewalk. A sidewalk is a surfaced way designed for preferential use by pedestrians. • 6-801 8 Guidelines for Cooperative Page 87 of 89 Construction Projects DS11.doc Glossary 4 of 6 Standard Width Concrete Sidewalk. A width of six feet for sidewalks separated from the • adjacent roadway by grass,pavers, or other non-concrete sidewalk boulevards, and eight feet for sidewalks that directly abut the adjacent roadway to allow for signs, sidewalks and roadside obstructions. State Road Construction Account. The biannual appropriation of funds by the legislature which may only be expended for trunk highway purposes. This appropriation is comprised of federal aid funds made available to Mn/DOT through ATP procedures and state funds dedicated to the trunk highway fund. State Transportation Improvement Program(STIP). Mn/DOT's State Transportation Improvement Program is a document that identifies all planned Mn/DOT and local unit of government transportation capital and construction projects receiving federal aid funds through the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration within the State of Minnesota for the subsequent three-year period. The STIP is developed annually by the districts, Area Transportation Partnerships(ATPs),Metropolitan Planning Organizations(MPOs), and Mn/DOT's Office of Investment Management. Studies and Preliminary Engineering. A process of research and fact-finding that includes, but is not limited to,traffic analysis,needs analysis,alternative development and evaluation, geometric design layouts and environmental documents,and associated mapping,visualization, surveys,traffic counts,public and agency involvement, soil boring and other necessary data gathering prior to commencing a roadway design. Surfacing. Surfacing consists of roadway pavement, including aggregate,bituminous, an • concrete base courses,but does not include curb and gutter. d Through-lane. A through-lane is that portion of a roadway available for the movement of vehicles, excluding shoulders,turn lanes,auxiliary lanes and parking lanes. Touch-down Point. A touch-down point is the limit of construction necessary to match trunk highway improvements with the existing alignment,grade,and geometric design of the intersecting street. Traffic Control Signal System. A type of highway traffic signal by which traffic is alternate) directed to stop and permitted to proceed. Integral components of the traffic control signal y include the control equipment,electrical wiring, signal hardware, intersection roadway lighting, intersection roadway signs, and emergency vehicle preemption,and other minor construction, such as curb, sidewalk,pedestrian curb ramps and minor surfacing considered to be a necessary element of the traffic signal system. Also included within this definition are pedestrian signals, and flashing beacons at intersections. Traffic Projection Factor. The 20-year county project factor identified in Figure 4(1)- 892.810 of the Mn/DOT State Aid Manual for County State Aid Highways and the 20-year Standard Projection factor of 1.5 for all Municipal State Aid Streets and other local roadways. Guidelines for Cooperative • Construction Projects Glossary 5 of 6 DS11.doc Page 88 of 89 6-80j • Traffic Signal System Operation. Consists of all aspects of timing,timing studies and optimization,monitoring,responding to inquiries,field review, and functional checks of a traffic control signal system. Traffic Signal System Major Maintenance. Maintenance of a traffic control signal system which consists of maintaining all components and needs of the traffic control signal system, including the control equipment,electrical wiring, signal hardware, and replacing equipment knockdowns. Traffic Signal System Minor Maintenance. Maintenance of a traffic control signal system which consists of relamping,cleaning and painting, and payment responsibility for the electrical energy to operate the traffic control signal system. Transportation District Engineer. A Transportation District Engineer is the chief administrator of one of the Minnesota Department of Transportation districts. This term refers to the Metropolitan Division Engineer,the seven Greater Minnesota Transportation District Engineers,and their authorized representatives. Trunk Highway. A trunk highway is an interstate or other highway which is under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. • Douglas H. Differt, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer Any questions regarding this guideline should be directed to: Municipal Agreements Engineer,MS 682 Transportation Building,Phone: 651-296-0969. • Guidelines for Cooperative Glossary 6 of 6 6-80k Construction Projects Page 89 of 89 DS11.doc • INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING APPLICATION FOR UTILITY PERMIT ON TRUNK HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY LONG FORM TP-2525 • Note:An incomplete application will delay processing. Long Form TP-2525 is used for the vast majority of utility placements and relocations.Form 2525 is for placing,constructing,and reconstructing utl hies wit in tru ig way nght o way,w et er ongitu•ma y,o•liquee,or perpendicular in relationship to the centerline of the highway(utilities crossing the highway,or paralielliisliffainliTTEgTorm is to sent tie St Paul office for processing. Form TP-1723(short form)is for minor work such as installation of utility service connections that do not cross or parallel the roadway within the trunk highway right of way.This form is also used for installing miscellaneous guy wires and anchors,to place temporary obstructions on the right of way,to perform temporary relocations of a more minor nature,and to accommodate a construction project.This form is sent to the District offices for processing. Fill Out Form Completely,be specific Print(in ink),type the application,or fill out on line and print form at:www.dot.state.mn.us/utility/forms/index.html • Be sure to sign it at the bottom.Submit the original form only;submit all 3 pages of application. • COPIES AND FAXES ARE UNACCEPTABLE AND WILL BE RETURNED TO YOU Submit the following information: • One permit application form completed in its entirety,if an item does not apply,print"N.A."in the blank, • Two sets of sketches,no larger than 11 x 17. • Drawn to a scale no smaller than 1 inch=200 feet • Include a typical of all pole structures,if applicable • A separate application for each trunk highway • A separate application for each maintenance area involved The sketch must show in detail the proposed location of any facilities to be placed as well as any relocation of existing facilities.The sketches must be on state right of way maps or state construction plan sheets.Right of way maps are available at: • http://dotapp3.dot.state.nm.us/cyberdocs_guest/ The sketch must contain references from the trunk highway centerline or the right of way line and a starting and ending point must be given.If there is no right of way map available a detailed drawing must be submitted with distances given from pertinent features such as centerline,right of way lines,curb and gutter,distances from nearest county roads and highway mile markers,etc. Indicate any tree trimming and/or clearing requirements.If the facility being placed is an aerial facility,include"blow out zone" (conductor movement envelope)information.A vegetation management plan must be worked out with the District office. If you have questions filling out the form you may contact Central Office Permits for assistance.Contact information can be found at: www.dot.state.mn.us/utility/contacts.html After the application has been completed,signed and dated,mail the application(all 3 pages of form)with the required plans to the St Paul office at:Minnesota Department of Transportation,Mr.Leonard Leitner, Utility Permits—Mailstop 678,395 John Ireland Blvd,MN,55155. After the Permit has been approved The applicant will be notified of the approved permit and of the amount of security deposit requested.The permit will have special provisions indicating the construction requirements. Read and observe these instructions during construction operations.A copy of the permit must be in the possession of the utility contractor while working on Mn/DOT right of way. Security Deposit A security deposit is required for permits that authorize work in state right of way to ensure that work is completed to Mn/DOT's satisfaction.The actual amount required will depend on the specific situation.The District Permit Office will determine the amount and type of deposit to be submitted,(if applicable),payable to the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation.Minnesota rules require that deposits be submitted in the form of a certified check,cashier's check,or surety bond payable to the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation.Deposits must be irrevocable and cannot expire. •After construction is completed After construction has been completed and all turf items re-established,the applicant must return the certificate of completion form to the District Permit Office for final inspection.If all work is satisfactory,they will determine when the deposit will be returned to the applicant. Mn/DOT Form TP-2525(6-3-2010) Page 1 of 1 Mn/DOT TP-2525(revised 3-10) Page 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA SUBMIT 1 (ONE)COMPLETED DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FORM WITH 2(TWO)SETS OF APPLICATION FOR UTILITY PERMIT ON SKETCHES, NO LARGER THAN 11 x17 TO: • TRUNK HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY Utilities Engineer-MS 678 INSTRUCTIONS 1.Complete only page one(no photocopies) Minnesota Department of Transportation TO 2.Sign completed form Transportation Building APPLICANT 3. Include 2 (two)sets of sketches, no larger than 11 x 17 St.395 Paul,MN 551 5I 899 County HY No. SEC. TWP. RGE. Company Project No. W Agreement No. New Facility ❑Replacement Facility City/Township State Project No. Application is hereby made for permission to place,construct and thereafter maintain a: Trunk Highway No. (Hong,Across,Along&Across) • °• Location: feet from center line on the side of the trunk highway as shown on the attached sketch. (North-South-East-West) I.AERIAL CONSTRUCTION(Check appropriate box) BLOW OUT ZONE INFORMATION LIGHTING ❑Single pole CI Open wire (Conductor Movement Envelope) Mounting Height ❑H-Frame ['Cable Mast Arm Length ❑Single pole&H-Frame ❑Vertical ❑Steel tower ❑Cross-arm Type of Lamp CI Existing pole line ['Vertical&Cross-arm Watts ❑Other Poles❑Breakaway ❑Non-Breakaway Voltage Number of Conductors Size of Conductors If attaching to existing pole line,owner of pole line: Minimum height of conductor: ft.along highway ft.at crossings over highway II.UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION Will Facility be attached to a bridge? ❑ III Direct Buried ['Other(explain) ❑ Yes ❑ No Voltage Number of Conductors-Type Size of Conductors,Cable Depth CONDUIT FACILITY TYPE CASING ['Plastic(type) Max.Oper.Pres. 0 Steel pipe ❑Steel pipe Wall thickness ❑Sectional Concrete ❑Multiple tile Grade 0 Other ❑Clay tile Class _ Wall thickness ❑Sectional concrete Size Grade ['Ductile Iron Depth Class ❑Other Number Size METHOD OF INSTALLING UNDER ROADBEDS(if open trench,explain why necessary) ❑Directional Boring ['Jacking ['Boring ❑Pneuma Gopher ['Open trench ❑Other III.EXTENT&LOCATION OF TREE TRIMMING AND/OR CLEARING: V. Work to start on or after Owner of Facility and to be completed on or before (Applicant) V. The applicant,in carrying on all of the work mentioned above or referred to in its application and in the Permit for construction issued therefore, Address shall strictly conform to the terms of the Permit,and the Rules of the State of Minnesota as set forth in Minnesota Rules 1983 as of July 31, City 1983 together with the Special Provisions,all of which are made a part hereof.The applicant specifically agrees to be bound hereby.The State applicant shall also comply with the regulations of all other Zip governmental agencies for the protection of the public.The work shall be Telephone • accomplished in a manner that will not be detrimental to the highway and that will safeguard the public. E-mail By Date Signature (Name and Title) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,Section 161.45,the following Rules have been promulgated by the Commissioner of Transportation(see pages 2&3). Page 2 1983 RULES safety of the public and which requires immediate repair. The utility thy MINNESOTA upon knowledge of such an emergency and reasonable 1983 cooperate fully State Patrol Division.The utility shall take ubl c necessary nd shall coop Adopted IE of Jury M 31, 1983 protect the traveling P sathty measures to p UTILITIES EQUIPMENT with the State Patrol De�rtiitnfrom the office The ofutility the in such ntndistrict Ii. will request a work p engineer, maintenance, not later than the second working day 8810.3100 DEFINITIONS. thereafter when a work permit would ordinarily have been required but highways.Under this order"interstate highways" for the emergency. time the state of shall mean a.Interstate ll tnk h hwayich are a part of the interstate system. improvements. If at any shall shall mean all trunk highway 3. Orders to make imp erthe s, Minnesota, acting through its commissioner of transportation, on all or any 2. Nha l eran all highway. Under this order "aopart oft the Subp• to make any commissioner or changes Suers highways which are not a p deem it necessary of erunk improvements eats affect cht n es o located on highways" shall mean all trunk highway part of the right-of-way interstate system. s' shall trunk highway right-of-way, then and in such event, the owner oft the days after written notice from ceed to alwr change s Under this order "trunk highways" agent, p system.3. Trunk highway those which are a part of the interstate transportationhor his dduly authorized ag mean all trunk highway including changes and as directed by the vacate,or remove said utilit from the trunk hi hwa n ht-of-wa so as system. commi�ss°er o trans op_rt�ion.Such work shall be done without any highway___.------ communication lines and d within the date spl ie• in whatsoever to the state of Minnesotaexce•t as otherwise •rovided 4. Utility. Under this order "utility" shall mean and include all to c wham to said trunk ig •let Subp. es, and owned cost privately, publicly, or coop law or agreement and shall be cam •e reasona•e un•er e facilities, any systems, gas, water, sewer, steam, and by law ;�.agreement •ate s a s stems, lines, and facilities for the distribution a other transmission ip lof ines,, railways,energy,it he oil, g e of any nature ditches, flumes, or other structures which said wr� i tice, which and all claims of damage s railways, village or city may circumstances. he utility shall assume all liability and save the state of other pipe Ine , removed said utility reason of not having the provisions or maintained across, along or on trunk Minnesota harmless from any under the laws of ta state n the ordinance of any g whatsoever occasioned by removed said a context,constructed, placed, upon the meaning intended in the specified in said notice. Notwithstanding nding right-of-way.ll Dependent up inclusive of any within the time highway , of parts 8810.3100 to 8810.3600, context, 'utility" shall also mean the utility company, municipality for the cost)of the mitt of 1a municipal street at municipally i all that the wholly owned subStatut when t the street located taken the State as a trunk highway, Statutory Authority:MS§161.45 street was taken over by construction or reconstruction of the trunk relocation is required by such highway. interstate 8810.3200 PURPOSE AND SCOPE. interstate highways. Utilities along ur ose of parts 8810.3100 to effectuate is 4. Along Subpart 1. Purpose.Thep P legislature and to effectuate that highways shall be located outside the control-of-access lines except as o carry out the mandate of the leg• n be located on private set forth in the Laws Stof atutes,Minnesota 161.45 with reference outlined below. Where utilities control-of-access-accessylines coincide with the to the l ci s lines, reconstructing, and maintaining of utilities right-of-way in general be located in the area between Where the control-of-access lines and right-of-way article II,section 45(Minnesota Statutes,section 1 ) to the placing, constructing, of trunk highways• utilities may 9 upon or under the right-of-way not coincide, across,along,up them.All utilities shall be serviced and manta neds.without t Utilities access from m Subp. o Scope. The scope of parts consistent with 8810.3600 ss loops, and through serviced from hrcross either over roads other the than highwaytate be confined within the framework of and consistent with the Laws of the eramps,h supporting poles may be Minnesota 1959,chapter 500,article it section 45. aerial crossing if they are a minimum of 30 s of an interstate highway, Statutory Authority:MS§161.45 located on interstate highway right-of-way however, 0 feet beyond the shoulders of all through traffic roadbeds; no event shall they be located in a median unless its witi 80ros feet or Subpart PERMITS. points of access to underground only when utility more. Manholes and other p right-of-way loops,or t as otherwise Permitted, Y be permitted on the interstate highway construction 1. Construction. Exrunk highway____- right-of-way— -- shall not be may I to utility lines strences and ran app is on trunk ' or cons rue ion as ten' located outside the shoulders of the through traffic roadbeds,con ica ion or a P s The restrictions of this subpart shall not apply interstate highway commence• un i an app _ ro the put y wi honseucnce toepe pertinent which ma a an sac permit g e reposed utility with reference t Wa ecenter which service facilities remeire�ses operating under strictly s ow a oca 10n t proposed curb lines,trunk highway be extreme that provided for each copy of such There may be permitted inside the contra features Prints as f rh n sketch shall be p maps available upon conditions,a utility may P line,etc.A copy right-of-way map an interstate highway.In each case there must be a showing permit. Prints the trunk highway difficult and unreasonably st e a o n the any other utility location is extremely construction,costly o Building, Paul,Minnesota 55155. the utility consumer, that the installation affect the designof-wa and that request from tBhe Rgad Plans Information Office, Department of along highway will that the adversely Subp. Mon ermit from the interstate h 9 y or operation of the interstate design, oy performing traffic roadbeds, prior to p stability, traffic safety, service 2.and maintenance The utility ions on maintenance, P office of the assistant district engineer,on the interstate highways and the utility can be serviced without access from through service and loops,or ramps• shallce also obtain aance o permit prior to performing or undertaking. The commissioner of shall also obtain a work p highways when such Subp. 5. Deposit, bond, maintenance operations on the noninterstate surface s of wh right-of- transportation may require the utility, or a surety bond or corporate way there require all opening ins and disturbing performing service and deposit in the form of a certified check, iring of prior to p in favor of the state of Minnesota,state i he re commissioner of way thereof.district all of engineer,maintenance,pri shall highways ic service undertaking expense incurred by caused by assistant diorma eng' an may transportation,for any P right-of-way to i aintenance operations on the non interstate highway damage to any portion of the trunk highway rmit for construction, performed under a work permit highway or a permit inspection including the normal flow of traffic thereon. However, the comp without work p engineering supervision and insposo is perform service and maintenance stan the where an emergency the rgright-of-way ncrof w is that highways including any out of the ordinary 9 special idangero dangerous to the and disturbing exists that is expense provided by the state. In those instances wherein Pep a work permit in those instances where an emergency required,the amount of the deposit shall be specified dangerous to the life or provisions of the permit. If a check is furnished, any moneys remaining over and above such expense shall be returned to the applicant. Page 3 Longitudinal installations on noninterstate trunk highways shall Subp. 6. Liabili normally be located in the outer five feet of the right-of-way. At agents, and employees, thef oril utility shall negligent a all liability state,and crossings of the noninterstate trunk highway, a minimum of 30 feet from the prohibitive line poles suc through . Unle save the state,its agents and employees,harmless from,an claims for damages, actions, or any and all nearly ndic ted on widths are for construction rue io such 1,theon. tion of work to for done herein and the causes of action arising out of the all brace indicated an the permit for cons poles sketch,the the location the e work to but not limited herein the c placing, constructing,i us reconstructing,he utility, i all brace maintaining,g,ano using of to the utility under this application ec and permit authorized Poles, representative and anchor poles within the limits of the trunk highway right-of--way shall be approved by the district engineer mr waiting,an. instances his es in w rh a ut utility i instances in whichP Prior to actual installation. In those Subp.7 construction on both sides of the trunk highway right-of-way in a P• No easement.The work permit or permit permits for given area such permit is conditioned upon the utility subsequently issued does not in any way imply work an easement i private property.construction P rmit for construction as providing joint use to other utilities upon reasonable terms mutually agreeable to the utilities. Statutory authority:MS§161.45 8810.3400 STANDARDS FOR WORK CONDUCTED UNDER Statutory Authority:MS§161.45 PERMIT. 8810.3600 UNDERGROUND LINES. Subpart 1.Trees, brush,and vegetation.At the time of construction All crossings of the roadbeds of the trunk highway shall be made by of the utility and brush,the times of subsequent in.At the maintenance, of the approval shall and obtained from the st engineer m inhen authorized maintenance, prior procedure inside a di fled or carrier pipe, prior procedure is P P or by jacking, unless this representative for the cutting and trimming ng of trees within the trunk construction.e than The ich. Op n trenching not lead the provisions of the highway right-of--way. Wherever trees are cut the resulting stumps permit for highway a removed unless otherwise provided a in the special provisions more tvenone inch. O casing or line ex pipe as from five feet beyond shoulder to ghe shall ght of-wary to the area except as of the permit mit removed unless otherwise Any holes caused by stump removal modified in the special provisions of the permit for construction. shall be backfilled, the area leveled, and all materials associated therewith disposed of outside the trunk highway materials erials --way. The ng there shall advise the When pipes with bells and flanges be are installed,boring, the nsideia conduit, of the reprysestatll d at least 48 hours in advance ofrits intent to start roadbeds d tinnt eighece shall paragraph,made by f jak igsiae a o his authorized as provided in the preceding vclearing and grubbing operations so that the proper supervision can be provided. sufficient diameter to permit threadin th meo pipe taro conduit i of r•- co Burning or disking operations and/or the use of chemicals to control All voids caused b or kill trees, brush, and other vegetation is prohibited without prior at least by jacking per boring shall be filled b Li] g. The grout material shall consist of a sand-cement slurry of at least two sacks of cement per cubic yard and a minimum of water 9 approval from the assistant district engineer,maintenance. to assure satisfactory placement. The underground utilities shall Z Subp. 2. Waterways, All waterways and lines of drainage shall so installed as virtually to preclude any necessity for disturbing ' w remain operative. roadbeds to perform maintenance operations. Subp. 3. Topsoil P Underground installations shall be accomplished without damaging or destroying the principal root structure of specimen trees. they shall a replaced and maintained ned satisfactorily l until ethe turf is established. Statutory Authority:MS§161.45 Subp.4. Existing utility facilities. The utility facility and installation shall not interfere with any existing utility facilities on the trunk highway right-of-way. Subp. 5. Warning devices. When necessary, devices and flagmen shall be provided by the utility during all phases of their construction and maintenance operations on the trunk NOTE: highway right-of-way. Subp.Subp.6. Restoration to original condition. U 6. Restoration the atio shall restore the hunk highway mp etion of an As used in Minnesota Rules, Upon completion ay to Highwions,and Subpart 1, interstate highways shall include all Interstate its original condition. The utility shall then notify the office of the part 8810.3100 assistant district engineer, maintenance, or project engineer of the Highways and Federal Aid Freeways. completion of the work so that inspection can be made to determine its acceptability. Subp. 7. Conformity. The installations shall be made in conformity with all applicable laws, rules,and codes covering said installations. All installations shall be made in conformity with rules of governmental agencies for the protection of the public Statutory Authority:MS§161.45 8810.3500 AERIAL LINES. • There shall be only a single pole line on the trunk highway right-of-way on either side of the center line thereof, unless otherwise authorized in the special provisions of the permit for construction. Page 2 • Rubs Ut deRr Chapter 500 Laws of 1959Trunk (5 2 liighvn+ys a and disturbing the surface of the right of way without a Work Permit in those instances us tohere � 5-201.1 PURPOSE an emergency exists that is dangerous The purpose of Regulation 5-201 is to carry out life or safety of the public and which requires N�� the mandate of the legislature and to effectuate immediate repair. The Utility upon knowledge of • • a such an emergency shall immediately notify the that mandate as set forth in the Laws of Minna- State Highway Patrol. The Utility shall take all with reference Chapter 500, Article, on constructing,Section o45 wfth reference to the placing,constructing, necessary and reasonable and tsh 11 cooperate utilities across, protect the traveling public Patrol to that end. strutting and maintaining of of trunk along, upon or under the right of way The Utility in such an event will request a Work with the State highways• Permit from the office of the Assistant District Engineer, Maintenance, not later than the second when a Work Permit would 5-201.2 SCOPE ord;nalyahaverbeenr required but for the emer- The scope of Regulation 5-201 is confined within gency. the framework of and consistent with the Laws of Minnesota 1959, Chapter 500, Article II, Section X. if at any time the State of Minnesota, acting 45. through its Commissioner of Highways, deem it necessary to make any improvements or changes on all or any part of the right of way of 5.201.3 DEFINITIONS the trunk highway which affect a utility located on trunk highway right of way;f utility and in'such I. Utility. Under this order 'utility' ublic y oha event, the owner of the utility shall within-such and include all privately, p days after written notice from the 1Commissioner ll w co-oper- atively owned communication lines and facilities, of Highways or his authorized agent, proceed any systems, lines and facilities for the dis- tribution and transmission of electrical energy, alter, change, vacate or remove said utility cnform so the trunk highway right of way oil, gas, water, sewer, steam and other pipe to said trunk highway changes and as directed lines, railways, ditches, flumes or other struc- tures by the Commissioner of Highways. Such work which under the laws of this State or the shall be done without any cost whatsoever to ordinance of any village or city may be con- structed, the State of Minnesota except as otherwise pro- on trunk placed or maintained across, along or the State to by law or agreement and shall be com- on trunk highway right of way. Depend"Utility"nt upon plated within the date specified in said written the meaning intended i y the pco context, notice, which date shall be reasonable under the ,Mali also mean the utility corn an , inclusive of any wholly owned subsidiaiy,• circumstances. The Utility shall assume all lia- bility and save the State of Minnesota o any nature 11. Interstate Highways. Under this order"inter- ' from any and all claims of damage state highways' shall mean all trunk highways whatsoever occasioned by reason of not having which are a part of the Interstate System. removed said utility within the time specified of in Under this order said notice. Notwithstanding the se a munici- pality Non-Interstate Highways. this Section, the State may part of the Interstate pality for the cost of the first relocation thie°the System. "non-interstate highways" shall mean all trunk municipally owned utility highways which are not a p System. limits of a municipal streethe Stetelas a trunk • street was taken over by IV. Trunk Highways. Under this order "trunk highway, when such relocation is required by highways' shall mean all trunk highways in- construction or reconstruction of the trunk high- cluding those which are a part of the Interstate way. System. negligent acts of the State, XI. Except for the neglig its agents and employees, the Utility shall as- sume GENERAL some all liability for, and save the State,and agents and employees, harmless from, any I. Except as otherwise permitted, utility con- struction and relocation on trunk highway right of action arising out of the work to be done herein and the continuing uses by the Utility, including way shall not for commenced until an application madnd but not limited to the placing, constructing, re- .for a Permit for construction has been made and maintaining and using of said utility such Permit granted. The Permit for construction constructing, sketch shall show the location of the proposed under this application and Permit for construc- utility with reference to pertinent features such tion. as the right of way lines, curb lines, trunk high- X11 The Commissioner of Highways may require way center line, etc. A copy of the sketch shall be provided for each copy of such Permit. Prints the Utility, or its contractor, to furnish retdeposit of trunk highway right of way maps are available in the form of a certified check, or corporate undertaking, in favor of the State anf upon request from the Utilities and Agreements any Minnesota, Commissioner State Highways,repairing of Engineer of the Road Design Section of the De- partment Be-of Highways at the State Highway portion of the trunk highway right Build- ing,St.Paul 1,Minnesota. damage to any p under a Work of way caused by work performed Permit or a Permit forcgnstructio ,incln and 1I. Burning or disking operations and/or the use out of the ordinary engineering supervision of chemicals to control or kill trees, brush and inspection expense provided by the State. In other vegetation is prohibited without prior ap- proval from the Assistant District Engineer,Main- tenance. the amount of the deposit shall be specified in the Special Provisionmsono of Permit. If a check III. All waterways and lines of drainage shall ;s furnished, any over and remain operative. above such expense shall be returned to the applicant. IV. l Wherever rplacetopsoil d land maintaineddsatisfactori shall the replaced XIII. The Work Permit or Permit for construction until the turf is established. as issued does not in any way imply on private property. V. The utility facility and installation facilities not XN, The installations shall be made in con interfere with any existing utility con- formity with all applicable laws, regulations and • the trunk highway right of way. codes covering said installations. All instai- latioas shall be made in conformity with regu- lations When necessary,barricades,warning edutility lations of governmental agencies for the protection and flagmen shall be provided by la thepublic. during all phases of their construction a°1d1 ht of tenance operations on the trunk highway g " Upon completion of an installation,right way. UV'Up Utility shall restore the trunk highway, shall way to its original condition. The Utility • • MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT y '�)G TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. 75823M SiC,N BETWEEN t THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION /75( THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON AND THE CITY OF STILLWATER AND THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND THE TOWNSHIP OF BAYTOWN TO Provide Maintenance and Electrical Energy for the new Traffic Control Signals with Street Lights, Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption, Interconnect and Signing on Trunk Highway No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at 58th Street North and- County Highway te Aid No.- 36 South Ramps, and on Trunk Highway No. 5 n No.S a6 Highway No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at Trunk Highway Lights,Ramps; and for the Lights, Engrgnncy and Signing on Trunk Highway No. 36 at Washn Township,- Norell Avenue in Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Baytown Washington County, Minnesota. • S.P. 8204-37 and 8214-119 S.P. 82-605-11 F.P. NH-STP 064-1 (077) Prepared by Traffic Engineering AMOUNT ENCUMBERED ESTIMATED AMOUNT RECEIVABLE None None Otherwise Covered • THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between t State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, the p p hereinafter referred to as the "State" , and the County of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "County" , and the City of Stillwater, hereinafter referred to as "Stillwater" , and the City of Oak Park Heights, hereinafter referred to as "Oak Park Heights" , and the Townshi p town of Baytown, hereinafter referred to as the "Township" , WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 161.20 (1994) authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authorit for the Y purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the Trunk Highway system; and WHEREAS, the State has determined that there is justification and it is in the public's best interest to remove the existing traffic control signals and install new traffic control signals with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at 58th Street North and at Trunk Highway No. 36 South Ramps, and on Trunk Highway No. 5 - County State Aid Highway No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at Trunk Highway No. 36 North Ramps; and to remove the existing traffic control signal • and install a new traffic control signal with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, advance warning flashers and signing on Trunk Highway No. 36 at Washington Avenue - Norell 75823M -1- i • Avenue in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in Traffic Control Signal Agreement No. 75826, between the County and the State; and WHEREAS, Stillwater, Oak Park Heights and the Township requests and the State agrees to provide Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption Systems, hereinafter referred to as the "EVP Systems" , as a part of the new traffic control signal installations on Trunk Highway No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at 58th Street North and at Trunk Highway No. 36 South Ramps, on Trunk Highway No. 5 - County State Aid Highway No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at Trunk Highway No. 36 North Ramps, and on Trunk Highway No. 36 at Washington Avenue - Norell Avenue and in IDaccordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the County, Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, the Township and the State will participate in the maintenance and operation of the new traffic control signals with street lights, EVP Systems, interconnect, advance warning flashers and signing as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. On Trunk Highway No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at 58th Street North (System "A") , -Heights <sha-11 Jbe r' onsible for.-the installation of an adequate electrical power supply.-,to_ the service pad, or pole, and for providing the necessary electrical power for the operation of the new traffic- • 75823M -2- control signal with street lights installation, at the shared costs of 50 percent Oak Park Heights and 50 percent the Township. Oak Park Heights shall receive the bill for the installation of the electrical power supply and the monthly electrical bill for the new traffic control signal with street lights, and invoice the Township for 50 percent of the costs. 2. On Trunk Highway No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at 58th Street North (System "A" ) , it shall be Oak Park Heights' responsibility, to: (1) maintain the ,. ' aires and all its components, including replacement of the luminaire if necessary; (2) relamp the new traffic control signal and street lights, except for the Rc[l r.Fn..s.ignal indications which shall be relamped by the State for the 5 year warranty period and by Oak Park Heights thereafter; and (3) qksan, and paint the new traffic control signal, cabinet and luminaire mast arm extensions: Oak Park Heights shall invoice the Township for 50 percent of the costs of the above mentioned maintenance responsibilities assigned to Oak Park Heights. It shall be the State's responsibility, at its cost and expense, to maintain the interconnect and signing and to perform all other traffic control signal and street light maintenance. 3 . On Trunk Highway No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at Trunk Highway No. 36 South Ramps (System "B" ) , the State shall provide an adequate electrical power supply to the service pad or pole, and upon completion of said new traffic control signal with 75823M • -3- • ( e. et lights installation shall provide the necessary electrical stye 5 power for its operation at the cost and expense the State. 4 . On Trunk Highway No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at nk Hi hway No. 36 South Ramps (System "B") , , it shall be the Tru g at its cost and expense, to maintain and State' s responsibility, kee in repair said traffic control signal with street lights, P interconnect and signing. 5 . On Trunk Highway No. 5 - County State Aid Highway hway No. 36 North Ramps No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at Trunk Hig uate electrical (System "C") , Stillwater shall provide an adeq power supply to the service pad or pole, and upon completion of hts installation said new traffic control signal with street lig • electrical power for its operation at i • shall provide the necessary y the cost and expense of Stillwater. 5 - County State Aid Highway On Trunk Highway No. � 6 . ` No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at Trunk Highway No. 36 North Ramps � , onsibility, at its (System "C") , a) It shall be the County s res cost and expense, to: (1) relamp the traffic control signal, or the Red LED signal indications which shall be relampea except for the County by the State for the 5 year warranty period and by ter• and (2) clean and paint the new traffic control thereafter; b It shall be signal, cabinet and luminaire .mast arm extensions; Stillwater' s responsibility,. at its cost and expense, to: its components, including (1) maintain the luminaires and all and (2) relamp the replacement of the luminaire if necessary; • 7.5823M -4- • • street lights; and c) It . shall be the State's responsibll ' its cost and a 1tY, at xpense, to maintain the signing and interconnect and to perform all other traffic control signal and street t light • 7. On Trunk Highway No. 36 at Norell Avenue Washington Avenue - (System ��D��) , Stillwater shall be responsible for the installation of an adequate electrical power supply to the service pad or pole, and for providing the necessary electrical power for the operation of the new traffic control signal street lights installation, at the shared c with I Stillwater and 50 percent costs of 50.. percent Oak Park Heights. receive the bill for the installation of the Stillwater shall . I i he electrical power supply and the monthly electrical bill for the new traffic control signal with street lights, and invoice Oak Park Heights for 50 percent of the costs. 8 . On Trunk Highway No. 36 at Washington Avenue (System "D") , it shall be Stillwater's responsibility,Y, to; (1) maintain the luminaires and all its components, including replacement of the luminaire if necessary; Y; (2) relamp the new traffic control signal, advance warning flashers and street lights, except for the Red LED signal indications which shall be it relamped by y the State for the 5 ear warranty r• Y Y pe-iod and by Stillwater thereafter; and (3) clean and paint the new traffic control signal, advance warning flashers, cabinet and luminaire mast arm extensions. Stillwater shall invoice Oak Park Heights • 75823M -5- 1 I for 50 percent of the costs of the above mentioned maintenance responsibilities assigned to Stillwater. It shall be the State' s responsibility, at its cost and expense, to maintain the signing and to perform all other traffic control signal, advance warning flasher and street light maintenance. 9 . The EVP Systems on Trunk Highway No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at 58th Street North (System "A") and at Trunk Highway No. 36 South Ramps (System "B") , on Trunk Highway No. 5 - County State. Aid Highway No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at Trunk Highway No. 36 North (System Ramps S "C" P ( Y "C") , and on Trunk Highway No. 36 at Washington Avenue - Norell Avenue (System "D") , shall be installed, operated, maintained or removed in accordance with the • following conditions and requirements. a) All maintenance of the EVP Systems shall be done by State forces. b) Emitter units may be installed and used only on vehicles responding to an emergency as defined in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 169 . 01, Subdivision 5 and 169 . 03 . Stillwater, Oak Park Heights and the Township will provide the State' s Assistant Division Engineer or his duly appointed representative a list of all such vehicles with emitter units . c) Malfunctions of the EVP Systems shall be reported to the State immediately. III 75823M -6- • d) e) In the event. said EVP Systems or components are, in the opinion of the State, being misused or the conditions set forth in Paragraph b above are violated, and such misuse or violation continues after receipt by Stillwater, Oak Park Heights or the Township of written notice thereof from the State, the State shall remove the EVP Systems . Upon removal of the EVP Systems pursuant to this Paragraph, the field wiring, cabinet wiring, detector receivers, infrared detector heads and indicator lamps and all other components shall become the property of the State . All timing of. said EVP Systems shall be determined by the State through its Commissioner of Transportation. 10 . Any and all persons engaged in the aforesaid work to be performed by the State shall not be considered employees of the County, Stillwater, Oak Park Heights or the Township and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of this State on behalf of said employees while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any sixth party as a . consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work contemplated herein shall not 75823M -7- • . i ' ' ' . . . . . . . . . . be the obligation and responsibility of the County, Stillwater, Oak Park Heights or the Township. The State shall not be responsible under the Worker' s Compensation Act for any employees of the County, Stillwater, Oak Park Heights or the Township. 11 . Timing of the new traffic control signals provided for herein shall be determined by the State, through its Commissioner of Transportation, and no changes shall be made therein except with the approval of the State. 12 . Upon execution and approval by the County, Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, the Township and the State and ► work completion of the construction provided for herein, this agreement shall supersede and terminate Agreement No. 73848 dated AilDecember 14, 1995, for the intersection of Trunk Highway No. . 5 - County State Aid Highway No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at Trunk Highway No. 36 North Ramps, between the County and the State. 13 . Upon execution and approval by the County, Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, the Township and the State and completion of the construction work provided for herein, this agreement shall supersede and terminate the operation and maintenance terms of Agreement No. 72439 dated September 26, 1994, for the intersection of Trunk Highway No. 36 at Washington Avenue - Norell Avenue, between Stillwater, Oak Park Heights and the State. • 75823M -8- . i COUNTY OF WASHINGTON APPR VED AS TO FORM: ACounty Att rney BY CapiZeijurina___Chairma of the Board Dated /�la l4 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: i (County Seal) County Highway Engineer By j if 1 if, • Co y Aaa AdMi iS a +t om., CITY OF STILLWATER AP•ROVE, •S TO FORM: Allaiegao444,‘ ./ Ci'v Attorney By AWL, .i 41! • Mi !f (City Seal) 1 By. 11 : _/. \ ) /-/, I 'City Clerk I CI OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS —P'OV I AS TO FORM: / lf B .(,�; CitAttorney Y Mayor / (City Seal) By \ v Ci "/Admi%istrator 75823M 10 -9- . I • . • . TOWNSHIP OF BAYTOWN ► ti,64 e54/, (//Z,k(e.■ By Township Boar. Member Chairpers f Township. Board (Seal) / tel: C:eit- - By Township Board Member Township Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v*/ - ).L Assistant Commissi•l er • Assistant Division Engineer Dated y Z3 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION: DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION �iif Y Original signed by ��~�•�"�` ' Lynn A. Klessig ,�rr Legal Assistant 7-041" X By Assistant Attorney General .Minnesota C State of Dated DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Original Signed By • By -----I27-Li"F"LLEF Dated 75823M -10- M1 • �7 • BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 97-138 DATE October 7 1997 DEPARTMENT Public Works-Tech/Admin MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Ens_ st_rom_ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER He ber I III MN/DOT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL ON TH 36 AGREEMENT NO. 75823M• BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Washington enter into an a reeme Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following g nt with the State of g purposes, to wit: To provide maintenance and electrical energy for the new traffic control signals with stree t lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and signing of Trunk Highway No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at 58th Street North and at Trunk Highway No. 36 South Ramps, and o Trunk Highway No. 5 - County State Aid Highway No. 5 ( Stillwater Boulevard) at Trunk on Highway No. 36 North Ramps; and for the new traffic control signal with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, advance warning flashers and signing on Trunk Highway No. 36 at Washington Avenue - Norell Avenue in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 75823M, a copy of which was before the Board. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the proper County officers be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the County all of the contractual obligations contained therein. ATTEST: 94.,..44, YES NO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ABRAHAMSON X ENGSTROM X HAUSER X HEGBERG X CHAIRMA , COUNTY BOARD PETERSON X of 111 I . J ■. I• 1 • i RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Stillwater enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: To provide maintenance and electrical energy for the new traffic control signals with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at 58th Street North and at Trunk Highway No. 36 South Ramps, and on Trunk Highway No. 5 - County State Aid Highway No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at Trunk Highway No. 36 North Ramps; and for the new traffic control signal with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, advance warning flashers and signing on Trunk Highway No. 36 at Washington Avenue - Norell Avenue in - accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 75823M, a copy of which was. before the Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officers be - and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby AD assume for and on behalf of the City all of the contractual obligations contained therein. CERTIFICATION State of Minnesota County of Washington City of Stillwater City of Oak Park Heights Township of Baytown I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the Council of the City of Stillwater at a du)y authorized meeting thereof held on the /8 day of I Jv4-,.,. .c i i , 1997, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. • A t Ill_c_. m_..4_&41-N City C erk • . (Seal) I • : • RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Oak Park Heights enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: To provide maintenance and electrical energy for the new traffic control signals with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at 58th Street North and at Trunk Highway No. 36 South Ramps, and on Trunk Highway No. 5 - County State Aid Highway No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at Trunk Highway No. 36 North Ramps; and for the new traffic control signal with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, advance warning flashers and signing on Trunk Highway No. 36 at Washington Avenue - Norell Avenue in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 75823M, a copy of which was before the Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officers be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby ( assume for and on behalf of the City all of the contractual • obligations contained therein. CERTIFICATION State of Minnesota County of Washington City of Stillwater City of Oak Park Heights Township of Baytown I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the Council of the City of Oak Park Height�st a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 0f1. day of �J��.�,,,h-cry , 1997, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. �!L 7`GG aI • Cit Admini trator 411 (Seal) i • u • "I RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Township of Baytown enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: To provide maintenance and electrical energy for the new traffic control signals with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at 58th Street North and at Trunk Highway No. 36 South Ramps, and on Trunk Highway No. 5 - County State Aid Highway No. 5 (Stillwater Boulevard) at Trunk Highway No. 36 North Ramps; and for the new traffic control signal with street lights, emergency vehicle pre-emption, advance warning flashers and signing on Trunk Highway No. 36 at Washington Avenue - Norell Avenue in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 75823M, a copy of which was before the Board. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper Township t officers be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement, (41) and thereby assume for and on behalf of the Township all of the contractual obligations contained therein. CERTIFICATION State of Minnesota County of Washington City of Stillwater City of Oak Park Heights Township of Baytown I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the Board of the Tow sh'p of Ba tow, at a duly autho1iz9ed authorized thereof held on the __ day shown by the minutes of said meeting in possession. Ii I 66,(A.A: Township Clerk • (Seal) i, \o \e", MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. 97834R BETWEEN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF CHASKA TO Remove Traffic Control Signal and Install a new Lights, Emergency Vehicle Traffic the Control Signal with Street Lig Vehicle 41 Traffic Control Sig Wing on Trunk Highway • Pre-emption, Interconnect and Sign the City of Chaska, Carver (Chestnut Street) at 4TH Street, County, Minnesota. S.P. 1008-65 (T.H. 41=260) System ID 20650 Prepared by Metropolitan District Traffic Engineering AMOUNT ENCUMBERED ESTIMATED AMOUNT RECEIVABLE None City of Chaska $125, 781.12 Otherwise Covered • - 1 Agreement No. 97834R PARTIES • This Agreement is entered into by the State of Minnes acting throu h its C ota g Commissioner of Transportation, the City of Chaska, (City) . and . RECITALS IBS Minnesota Statutes Section 161 .20 authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to enter into agreement governmental authority for the s with any purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the Trunk Highway system. The State has determined that there is justification is in the public 's best i and it interest to remove the existing traffic control signal and install a new traffic control signal including street lights, interconnect • ct and signing (Traffic Control Signal) at the location set out in accordance with State this Agreement, in plans, specifications and special designated as State Project No. pecial 1008-65 (T.H. 41=260) . The City requests and the State agrees to the i installat of an Emergenc on y Vehicle Pre-emption System (EVP System) as a part of the new Traffic Control Signal installation. The City requests that the Traffic Control Signal be painted and agrees to pay for 100 percent of the painting costs. It is considered in the public ' s best interest for the State to provide a new cabinet and control equipment • - 2 - Agreement No. 97834R 1111 (State-furnished materials) to operate the new Traffic Control Signal. The City and the State will participate in the cost, maintenance and operation of the new Traffic Control Signal and EVP System. CONTRACT 1. The State will prepare the necessary plan, specifications and proposal (Preliminary Engineering) . 2 . The State, with its own resources or by contract, will remove the existing traffic control signal and install a new 411 Traffic Control Signal and EVP System on Trunk Highway No. 41 (Chestnut Street) at 4TH Street, pursuant to State Project No. 1008-65 (T.H. 41=260) . 3 . The State will perform all construction engineering and inspection functions (Construction Engineering) in connection with the contract construction and perform all other acts and functions necessary to cause the construction contract to be completed in a satisfactory manner. 4. The cost of construction (Construction Cost) consists of the contract cost of the work and State-furnished materials, or, if the work is not contracted, the actual cost of all labor, materials, State-furnished materials and equipment rental required to complete the work. Construction Cost does not 1 include the cost of providing the power supply to the service - 3 - Agreement No. 97834R III pole or pad. A Preliminary SCHEDULE "I" is attached and incorporated into this Agreement. The Preliminary SCHEDULE "I" includes all City Construction Costs, and is based on engineer' s estimated unit prices and State-furnished materials lump sum amounts. The City will participate in the following construction at the percentage indicated: a. 50 Percent for the Traffic Control Signal on Trunk Highway No. 41 (Chestnut Street) at 4TH Street. b. 50 Percent for the EVP System on Trunk Highway No. 41 (Chestnut Street) at 4TH Street. c. 100 Percent for the painting of the Traffic Control Signal on Trunk Highway No. 41 (Chestnut Street) at 4TH III Street. d. The City will pay a Construction Engineering charge in an amount equal to 8 percent of the total City Construction Cost and lump sum State-furnished materials, covered under this Agreement. 5. The City' s estimated total Construction Cost share, lump sum State-furnished materials and Construction Engineering costs are $125, 781. 12, as shown in the attached Preliminary SCHEDULE "I. " The State will prepare a Revised SCHEDULE "I" based on construction contract unit prices and lump sum State-furnished materials cost. Upon execution of this Agreement, award of the Construction Contract, and receipt of the State' s written request, the City will advance to the State III - 4 - Agreement No. 97834R • their total estimated Construction, lump sum State- furnished materials and Construction Engineering cost share, as shown in the Revised SCHEDULE "I . " 6 . Upon completion and acceptance of the contract construction and upon computation of the final amount due the State' s contractor, the State will prepare a Final SCHEDULE "I" and submit a copy to the City. The Final SCHEDULE "I" will be based on final quantities, and include all City Construction Costs, lump sum State-furnished materials and Construction Engineering covered under this Agreement. If the final cost of the City' s participation covered under this Agreement exceeds the amount of funds advanced by the City, the City will, upon receipt of a request from the State, promptly pay the difference to the State without interest. If the final cost of the City' s participation covered under this Agreement is less than the amount of funds advanced by the City, the State will promptly return the balance to the City without interest. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 15 .415, the State waives claim for any amounts less than $5 . 00 over the amount of the City funds previously advanced to the State, and the City waives claim for the return of any amounts less than $5 .00 of those funds advanced by the City. 7 . The City will be responsible for the cost and application to secure an adequate power supply to the service pad or pole. Upon completion of this project, the City will • - 5 Agreement No. 97834R thereafter pay all monthly electrical • 1 service expenses necessary to operate the Traffic Control Signal and EVP System. 8. Upon completion of this project, the City will, at its cost and expense: (1) maintain the luminaires and all its components, including replacing the luminaires when necessary; (2) replace the signal system L.E.D. indications and relamp the street lights; (3) clean the signal and service cabinets; and (4) clean and paint the new traffic control signal and luminaire mast arm extensions . Painting will be in accordance with Mn/DOT Standard Specification 2565 .3T, unless approved by the State' s District Traffic Engineer. The State will, at its cost and expense, maintain the interconnect and signing, and perform all other traffic control signal and street light maintenance. • 9. The EVP System will be installed, operated, maintained, or removed in accordance with the following conditions and requirements: a. All maintenance of the EVP System must be done by State forces. b. Emitter units may be installed only on authorized emergency vehicles, as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 169 . 01, Subdivision 5 . Authorized emergency vehicles may use emitter units only when responding to an emergency. The City will provide the State' s District Engineer or his/her designated representative • - 6 Agreement No. 97834R a list of all vehicles with emitter units, if requested by the State. c. Malfunction of the EVP System must be reported to the State immediately. d. In the event the EVP System or its components are, in the opinion of the State, being misused or the conditions set forth in Paragraph b above are violated, and such misuse or violation continues after the City receives written notice from the State, the State may remove the EVP System. Upon removal of the EVP System pursuant to this Paragraph, all of its parts and components become the property of the State. • e. All timing of the EVP System will be determined by the State. 10 . Each party will be solely responsible for its own acts and omissions and the results thereof, to the extent authorized by law. Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 3 .736, governs the State' s liability. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 and other applicable law govern liability of the City. Each party will be solely responsible for its own employees for any Workers' Compensation claims. 11. All timing of the new Traffic Control Signal will be determined by the State, and no changes may be made except with IIIthe approval of the State. - 7 - Agreement No. 97834R 12 . By signing this agreement, the City authorizes the State to enter upon the City public right of way to install and maintain the new Traffic Control Signal and EVP System. 13 . Upon execution and approval by the City and the State and completion of the construction work provided for herein, this agreement will supersede and terminate Agreement No. 61392, dated April 25, 1983, between the parties. 14 . Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original Agreement, or their successors in office. 14 . If the State fails to enforce any provisions of this Agreement, that failure does not waive the provision or • r its right to enforce it. 15 . This Agreement contains all negotiations and agreements between the parties. No other understanding regarding this Agreement, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party. 16. Minnesota law governs this contract. Venue for all legal proceedings arising out of this Agreement, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 17. This Agreement is effective on the date the State obtains all required signatures under Minnesota Statutes 16C. 05, • - 8 - Agreement No. 97834R • Subdivision 2 , and will remain in effect until terminated by , written agreement of the parties . 18 . The State' s obligation to perform any work, or to let a Contract for the performance of the work, on the State Project referenced above, is subject to the availability of funding from the Minnesota Legislature or other funding source. 19 . Authorized Agents a. The State' s Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is Allan Espinoza, Mn/DOT Metropolitan District Traffic Engineering, or his successor. His current address and phone number are 1500 West County Road B2, Roseville, MN 55113 , (651) • 234-7812 . b. The City' s Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is William Monk, City Engineer or his successor. His current address and phone number are 1 City Hall Plaza, Chaska, MN 55318- 1962 , (952) 448-2851 . • - 9 Agreement No. 97834R IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement by • their authorized officers. CITY OF CHASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Recommended for approval: By Mayor By District Engineer Date Approved: By BY State Design Engineer Title Date Date Approved as to form and execution: By Contract Management Date COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION As delegated to Materials Management • Division eg By Date CITY OF CHASKA RESOLUTION • - 10 - S IS RESOLVED that the City of Chaska enter into Mn/DOT Agreement No. 97834R with the State of Minnesota,Department of Transportation for the following purposes: To remove the existing Traffic Control Signal and Install a new Traffic Control Signal with Street Lights, Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption, Interconnect and Signing on Trunk Highway No. 41 (Chestnut Street) at 4TH Street,under State Project No. 1008-65 (T.H. 41=260),within the corporate City limits. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the are (Title) authorized to execute the Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement. CERTIFICATION I certify that the above Resolution is an accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the Council of the City of Chaska at an authorized meeting held on the day of 2010 shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession. Subscribed and sworn to before, as me this day of ,2010 (Title) Notary Public My Commission Expires (Signature) • (Type or Print Name) a 0 0 co N N N N ti Ts O N•! n 0 b .. U • E-4 69 01 .--, N FA vs geee O N o O V 0000 g in F4 in in U ca a E 0 0' o° o° oo°, o°• - c o° ■ 0 0 'u 0 v kn o 00 N N N 0 Om 69 M F F a u o C. ° a � oo U Age/ Sao era o w 'U O1 g'ai U 4„ rn Aio F.. Cdr , 0 0 a ' .1 a E N O W N 0 O p V ;, 4 0 c E E ° + y O OU Cn a c b cn ° °' p Cb U O '?§ pp (it 69 cl Z E w Q a� ° CN N O y C) i VJ N E U y r/� E N cam+ po .gyp» 0 E- N Z E r=U+ ct3 W p cc3 ., V1 O V fir w ' O p i Oar "' `° rz, o ° ° t ; � *' why .U+ ° U .g • U N a crt N C O O p p cl 0 H � o UUE� . . . 7• RESOLUTION NO. C/-5--Off-36Y CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS • WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION PROVIDING A RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST OF THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION PROPOSAL FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 36 AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ST. CROIX RIVER BRIDGE WHEREAS, THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS has previously received a proposal from the Commissioner of Transportation for the State of • Minnesota for a corridor proposal submitted pursuant to Minn. Stat. 161 . 173 affecting the proposed improvements to T.H. 36 and a new St. Croix River Bridge; and, WHEREAS, the city of Oak Park Heights did formally and timely sst submit its response in opposition to said corridor proposal to the Commissioner of Transportation by providing a copy of Resolution No. 90-05-18 to the Department of Transportation; and, WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights was presented with Layout plans on the 18th of April, 1995 affecting the "Trunk Highway 36 new St. Croix River Crossing Layout #2 approval" ; and, WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights did receive simultaneously with the layout plans a copy of the Federal Environmental Impact Statement; and, e WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights did respond to the Federal Environmental Impact Statement as prepared by Commissioner of Transportation of the State of Minnesota by passage of Resolution No. 95-05-31; and, WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights has conducted numerous public hearings on this proposed project and has received the. benefit of public comment on this project; and,. WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights has previously received the preliminary report of its consulting engineers dated March, 1992 identifying the impact of the project as proposed at that time on the City's utility and transportation systems; and, . • WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights has previously received the report of its fiscal consultant examining the financial impact of the project as proposed on March 12, 1992; and, • WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights has previously received or, the report. of its, planner, Northwest Associated Consultants ,of : • March of .1992; . and, ' • . • . • • WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park has been willing to examine and • (� modify its position on the need for a new St. Croix River Crossing and T.H. 36 improvements as is referenced by its RESOLUTIONS 92-03- 15 AND 92-05-24;• and, WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights has caused the offices of its City Planner, Engineer and Fiscal Consultant to reevaluate the current layout plans as against earlier proposals; and, WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights has authority over the corridor and layout plans on the proposed Bridge Structure pursuant .to Minnesota Statutes 161.172 through 161.176 and pursuant to Minnesota Statute 165.07; and, WHEREAS, the project as proposed may impact the use, rerouting and reconstruction of municipal utilities, the expense and burden of which should not be born by the residents and taxpayer of the city; and, WHEREAS, the commissioners proposal, should not necessitate the relocation within the city of additional wetlands necessitated to mitigate the loss of wetlands due to this project; and, • WHEREAS, the city shall suffer a significant loss of tax base as a result of the proposed project due in part to direct acquisition of lands necessitated for this project and also due in t part to depreciation or diminution of some remaining property • values, all of which will have an impact on the ability of the balance of the city and its taxpayers to continue and maintain municipal functions and projects; and, WHEREAS, the proposed layout of trailway facilities must provide adequate interconnection of sidewalks, bikepaths and roadway shoulders to safely accommodate trailway users; and, WHEREAS, the city recognizes and supports the desire of the commissioner in this project to move interstate. and metropolitan traffic efficiently and safely but also is convinced that a plan . could adequately plan the layout of the project in a manner so as to avoid placing a permanent and disproportionate burden on the residents of the City of Oak Park Heights; and, WHEREAS, it appears to the City of Oak Park Heights that modifications and/or alternatives could be better• implemented to . • provide for a better layout plan that could effectively meet the needs of the Department of Transportation, the State of Minnesota • • and the City of Oak Park Heightsf and, WHEREAS, City Staff and MnDOT personnel have met on a number of occasions and addressed mutual concerns and have proposed a' • Memorandum of Understanding with regard to this issue, a copy of which is agreed to be executed between MnDOT and the City. . • . . • • • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IS RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE••-'.-t CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City of Oak Park Heights hereby g rants approval to the layout plan presented on the 18th of April, 1995 affecting•the layout Trunk Highway 36 new St. Croix River crossing Passed by the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights this 14th day of August, 1995 . • 1 ' is , Ilf' .., Mayor -..._Ba •ara H. O'Nea ATTEST: fichael J. 'obertson City Administrator • . • , • • I ; \ '. 1 - r ' 401 • MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding .(MOU) made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State" and the City of Oak Park Heights, hereinafter referred to as the "City" ; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the State has prepared and presented layout plans to the City for the reconstruction of the State Highway 36 Corridor in the City and the construction of a bridge crossing the St. Croix River from the City; and, WHEREAS, during the review process, regarding said plans, a number of issues —have arisen which the parties hereto have discussed, and desire to resolve to writing; and, �' WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. 161.20 Subd. 2 (1994) authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and improving the Trunk Highway System. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto state as follows: i. Storm water pond between Highway 5 and Norell Avenue. The State needs to acquire approximately .88 acres for storm water ponding in the area between Highway 5 and Norell Avenue. The State is willing to participate in the regi al storm pond that would be necessary to serve Menards, Autumn Ridg Subdivision and other developments in the area and the State has agree o pay its pro- rata share of the land costs. The State also hereby agrees. to pay .t.;. • pro-rata staff costs to the City for designing the state portion of • pond should the. city desire to do so. It is understood and agreed • that funding for the State participation would not be available until fiscal 1997 (July 1, 1996) . The State has the option as an alternative to participating in a regional storm water pond described above, to independently acquire such property as is needed for the State storm water ponding needs in which the City will not participate. 2 . Wetland Mitigation. The State intends to use a portion of the DMR Wildlife Management Area land located on the southerly edge of the City for wetland mitigation. 3 . Trailways. It is understood that the State has not shown on its plans all of the sidewalks and trails that are proposed to be constructed, because the State prefers to be in a position to propose alternatives in areas as potential problems arise. All • trailways and sidewalks will be designed to the extent possible so as to coordinate with the City's existing trailway, sidewalk and pedestrian traffic plans. The State shall acquire such right-of- way as may be necessary in order to construct such a trail and 'sidewalk system so long as it does not have a substantial adverse impact on any existing business. 4 . Frontage Road and at Oakcrreen - . 36 Intersection. The State plans to remove the building located on the Dielentheis • property between the future frontage road and Highway 36 . s . Design . at . the Frontage Road at Oakcrreen - 36 Intersection. The City' s consulting engineer has agreed with the • • .States design of this intersection. The State will provide . . • I • ■ il, additional information regarding the amount of the Dielentheis land +•. .' needed for the frontage road. The State will convey to the City, in the States discretion, the land in this area not needed by the State for the City' s use as a part of the trail system. The State hereby agrees to mitigate any wetland losses from this area, the State intends to design' a storm water pond within their frontage road area because of the large size of the area. 6 . Road between Osgood and Highway 95. It is understood and agreed that this road would have a maximum six (6%) percent grade; be approximately 30 feet. from the State right-of-way; and will be 28 feet wide with curb and gutter; including trail or sidewalk storm sewer would be required so that no water would flow onto the flyash. The State will be involved in the design of the road and will later contract to reimburse the City for all construction and 41, design costs. This road shall be built over the ash to avoid its removal. 7. Soccer Fields. It is understood that the State will not provide money for the loss of soccer fields, but it will reconvey excess property to the City fOr public purposes at two other locations. The two existing locations that are being considered for reconveyance are along Beach Road near Cover Park and along Lookout Trail. 8. Traffic Lights on Highway 95. It is understood and agreed the traffic signals cannot be placed on State Highways unless they meet signal warrants and are justified. The State ( ;. expects that the Highway 36 exit 'and entrance ramps onto Highway 41ii3 ' , 95, along with- the Highway 36 North frontage road connection to r Ill ' Highway 95, will be justified. It is understood that the Highway 36 South frontage road connection to Highway 95 will not meet those standards. The State hereby agrees that if it determines that a traffic light needs to be installed in the future, it will pursue a variance process in order to pay 100% of the costs, but it cannot guarantee that the variance will• be granted. 9. Park and Ride Facility. It is understood and agreed that the State will build a park and ride facility only if there is metropolitan bus serve to the area. It is understood that this issue cannot be resolved until the final design stage. In the event a park and ride facility is not constructed, the State has agreed to consider building a smaller parking lot that could be used for informal car pooling. 0 10. South Frontage Road. As part of this project, the South Frontage Road will not directly connect to Highway 95, but will be constructed along the existing 59th Street right-of-way and connect to Stagecoach Trail, traffic would then proceed south to Stagecoach Trail, turn left at 56th Street and access Highway 95 at the new Picket Avenue connection. The South frontage road will be moved further to the north to increase the amount of buffer space for those residents living on R 59th Street. 11. Comprehensive Landscape Plan. The conceptional . landscaping plan will be provided as part of the final construction plan which will be approved by the City at the same time. The City C:i • • . 4 • will be involved in the development of the conceptual and final landscaping plan through the design review committee. 12. Scenic Overlook. The State agrees to review the washout condition under the scenic overlook and to make the necessary improvements to remedy this condition, such plans may include a new retaining wall for support. 13 . Beach Road Alignment. ' Beach Road north of Highway 36 will be moved slightly to the east to provide more buffer space between the road and the existing townhomes. 14 . Lookout Trail. to the extent that proper drainage allows, the State will widen and resurface Lookout Trail as part of this project, issues affecting drainage shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 15. Property Acquisition. The State will set up a field office in one of the homes to be acquired in lower Oak Park Heights in order to address questions from concerned citizens and to have someone on site to attempt to resolve problems as they occur. The State •will provide the City with a list of properties which have been or will be acquired. The list will state when the properties are to be vacated and the list will be periodically updated for the benefit of the City. The State has and will provide the City information affecting the relocation process, options and benefits for affected homeowners and businesses. No homes shall be moved by the State or its assigns or transferees without written permit from the City, the State shall • • :s 5 . • inform all buyers of this condition. • 16 . Cit Utili ies Disru•ted b Construction. The City in Engineer will provide the State with design information consult g as to where and how to redesign those City utilities which will be moved or disrupted by the construction process of the State. The State will reimburse the City for the consulting Engineer' s time in providing this design information. 17. Cites roperty. State shall purchase the City owned parcel (see attached) . The acquisition cost shall be based on fair market value but shall not be less than $32, 000.00 . 18 . Turn Back of Fronta a Roads. Any turn back of frontage roads to the City will be subject to future agreements. The City has agreed to accept the turn back of the frontage road between State Highway 5 and Norell Avenue as a part of the 58th Street Cooperative Agreement. 19 • Construction Starting. It is understood and agreed that orce of local governments or some other similar arrangement a task f the will be formed so that the local governments affected by construction project will have input at an early stage of the struction staging planning process. The City shall set a time con regarding and place to invite the interested parties to a meeting the formation of such a task force. and State shall 20• Brid e e Re Noisduction. The City continue to meet and discuss this issue as it remains unresolved. The State and City agree 21. Welcome to Minnesota S_ i I • to • . . . work together in an effort to provide the City with land' for. its • . . r • own identification sign. (''•' 22. Portable Truck Weigrh Station. The City and the State share a common concern with regard to overweight vehicles utilizing the Highway 36 corridor. For that purpose, the State agrees with the City that the proposed park and ride as shown on the layout plans provide sufficient room for detaining trucks and use as a portable weigh station. The City and the . State agree to cooperatively work with the Minnesota State Patrol to eriodically establish a portable weigh station and monitor truck traffic utilizing the Highway 36 corridor. 23 . Boat Access. The Department of Transportation agrees to cooperate with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) should the DNR ever decide to build a boat access at or near the Allen S. King Plant. ill° 24 . The State' s financial obligation . referenced in this MOU are subject to and conditioned upon the current availability of funds apportioned by the legislature for these purposes. Any financial obligations not covered in this MOU but for which funds are not currently available are unenforceable unless the legislature appropriates funds in the future for these purposes. 25 . MOU Approval. Before this MOU shall become effective, it shall be approved by a City Council Resolution and receive a 1 pproval of the State and City offices. Nf 7 I-. • '.' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CITY ,OF OAK PARK d:-- GHTS • By S.i. _ .0 &_ ' Mayor :arbara H. O'Neal, Date: '- l�` ,,c-4. By• By: sneer Michael J. Robertson• Divisio Enq Administrator • •4I . • . . . .• • . c. 1 ......., 8 \ . • S^'1 n R 0 h1 11111 w N .{ , S 8 ; Q J g i q 0 vi A H w m. ',^S- m i o A.. 1p?. ° $ R z :v m'6 j > .. -1 -1 3!U !H !UH si A 1 g s � _$ s g a s 'i m s4° $ E o P ! ili 1; l. n o 5 ,.1 B w 11 F. k 1 o A N n " > o $ W ° 4E4, 411 1 ItO S a,3 i 5 x 1 `I g of$l n? a H ? v o ° o m S Ua i mm o Z I z N c D D D In D D o o ; ^ - laiff m m x ig 6 o o e u go n D D D D D D D D n 9 X a EPro m m m m m Q)_ n , ^P m D 4 I I I .. N° D m D 1 m bI1 $ F N 7 m X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X a. N n a. 2 X X X X X X lz AX X X xffa 3 * g m g / 1ff � iif 3 m l g a 6 68 5 E is sae g O. S m� ' ^g g o o go 3'0� ;E. af gEs a g a S 3 n m I° I f F E 6 y F3 oig : 3 5 .g g g g 1 hi :11 111011 ii a A D 0.3g Nil w A 8 $ B 8 k u8m gym. 531E B I , i m 8 Ba 1 0 �[ 3m 8 °»m u �3s 8 P. a. g 3u 3 3 ga 3 3 3 3 3 �' F i t i $ '� i �° o fO a 6 B BT B B �I B R TT T m 3 I� m 3 5 3 9" '� '1 H m m 3 Ido'm m m m m m m m 'm m m Ill ti y N H N y N N m m N m m m Co N N N N co v P w w w w w _. N H y� N P a ' w _ m ? Q 2 w w w i. $ 8 N w w Nu S. W N g w N N z & N N $ w a A g a It • o tu State of Minnesota District Court Washington County Tenth Judicial District Court File Number:82-C0-06-006815 Case Type: Civil Other/Misc. - Notice of Entry of Judgment RICHARD L VARCO JR STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE 445 MINNESOTA ST STE 1200 ST PAUL MN 55101 In Re: CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS BWE vs.STATE OF MINNESOTA 2 FILES V2 RED You are notified that judgment was entered on October 18,2007 . Dated:October 18,2007 Christina M.Volkers Court Administrator • , By: LIts--- Deputy Court Administrator Washington County District Court 14949-62nd St.N;PO Box 3802 Stillwater MN 55082 651-430-6263 cc: MARK J-VIERLING III • STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT FAMILY COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WASHINGTON TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: 14/Other Civil Court File No.C0-06-006815 City of Oak Park Heights, a Minnesota municipal corporation, NOTICE OF ENTRY Plaintiff, and State of Minnesota,by its Commissioner of Transportation, Defendants. TO: RICHARD VARKO,JR.,ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, STATE OF MINNESOTA,SUITE 1800,445 MINNESOTA STREET, ST. PAUL,MN 55101 III PLEASE TAKE NOTICE,that on the le day of October,2007,the annexed Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law and Order issued by the Honorable B.William Ekstrum, Judge of District Court,with regard to the above-referenced matter,was duly entered and filed in the office of the Court Administrator,Washington County,Minnesota. Dated this 19th day of October,2007. ECKB''G,L- I I •..,BRIGGS, 'OLFF : 'i RUNG,P.L.L.P. 111 II 11:: Mark : ----J.- —_ Attorneys for Plaintiff 1809 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater,Minnesota 55082 (651)439-2878 Attorney T.D. 112823 III • File# � ,Q-cYtS F WASHINGTON COUNTY F I DISTRICT COURT I STATE OF MINNESOTA L C 007 L DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF WASHINGTO ._ , , ,, , ■ NTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATOR ' By V,,, 1 Deputy Court File: CO-06-6815 City of Oak Park Heights, a Minnesota municipal corporation, Plaintiff, vs. FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER State of Minnesota,by its Commissioner Of Transportation Defendants. The above-entitled matter came before the Honorable B.William Ekstrum on July 20, 2007,at the Washington County Government Center,Stillwater,Minnesota,pursuant to IIIDefendant's motion to dismiss,Plaintiffs summary judgment motion and Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery. Plaintiff was represented by Mark Vierling,Esq.and Jennifer Nodes,Esq. Defendant was represented by Richard Varko,Jr.,Assistant Attorney General. Based on all the files, records and proceedings herein, the Court hereby makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. For at least a period of two decades,the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Transportation("Mn/DOT"and"Wis/DOT"respectively)along with municipalities located along the St.Croix River and affected by the congestion issues have attempted to address increased traffic congestion in and around the Stillwater lift bridge. 2. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, serious discussion and planning began for a replacement . II III bridge across the St. Croix River(hereinafter the"project"). 3. In April 1995,an Environmental Impact Statement("EIS")was completed} The 1995 Final EIS considered three possible crossing areas:the north,central and south corridors. The 1995 Final EIS recommended that the crossing be in the north alignment of the south corridor. 4. On August 14, 1995,The City of Oak Park Heights(the"City")approved the final layout , ' plans from the Mn/DOT regarding the recommended alignment of the bridge. 5. In 1995, after completion of the Final EIS,work began on the project. In 1996,Iitigation was commenced alleging that work was beginning without a determination as to whether it would have a direct and adverse impact and in violation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Work on the project was halted as a result of the litigation and a finding by the National Park Service(hereinafter"NPS")that the project as proposed would have a direct and adverse III effect on the Lower St. Croix River which was protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. As a result of the NPS finding,the federal permits from the U.S.Army Corp of Engineers and the Coast Guard could not be issued. 6. Litigation ensued regarding the NPS finding. The case was filed in federal district court as Civil Case No. 4-96-547 and entitled Sierra Club Northstar Chapter and Voyagers Regional National Park Association and the City of Oak Park Heights v. Frederico Pena, Secretary of the United States Department of Transnortation,et al. The United States District Court,the Honorable Ann Montgomery,denied summary judgment to Mn/DOT which had hoped to upset the NPS determination that the proposed project had an adverse effect on the St.Croix Plaintiff requested that the Court take judicial notice of the 1995 Environmental Impact Statement dated April 1995,the 2006 Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement and the April 13, 1998 Memorandum Opinion and Order,Hon.Ann Montgomery,United States District Court,District of Minnesota. Defendant did not object. However,the Court does not take judicial notice of these documents but does acknowledge the existence of these II documents and that these documents are part of the record. 2 River in violation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 7. After the April 1998 Order of the Honorable Ann Montgomery,Mn/DOT engaged Richard P.Braun,a retired Mn/DOT commissioner,to facilitate discussions regarding the bridge project. Following Mr.Braun's facilitation process,and after the Federal Highway Works Administration pursued a conflict resolution process,a determination was made that a consensus could be reached regarding the project. After a determination was made that regulatory agencies and federal partners were willing to proceed,Mn/DOT and Wis/DOT reinitiated the project in June 2002. 8. In 2006,a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was completed. Following completion of the 2006 Supplemental EIS,the Department of Transportation indicated to the City that a submission under the municipal consent statute would be forthcoming. The • project for addressing the traffic congestion and issues relating to the Stillwater Lift Bridge was amended from its 1995 version as a result of the litigation and the subsequent discussions and dispute resolution process. Changes were made in the specific implementation of the bridge project. However,the focus and purpose of the project,the history of the project and the parties and players to the project remain the same. 9. The legislature amended the municipal consent layout process in 2001. Minn.Stat. §161.17, • §§161.171-177 were replaced with Minn. Stat. §§161.162 to 161.167. A dispute between the State and the City arose regarding whether the prior statute or the current statute would govern the municipal consent process. Initially,the State indicated that it would be submitting the plan for municipal approval under the previous statutes,Minn.Stat. §161.17, §§161.171—177 (2000). In later correspondence from the State to the City,the State indicated that it would be submitting the plan for municipal approval under Minn.Stat. • 3 • §§161.162 to 161.167(2006). The City maintains that the prior statutes are the applicable • law,and has provided deposition testimony from the chief author of the 2006 Supplemental EIS on behalf of Mn/DOT,who confirmed that the same project had layout approval sought from the City of Oak Park Heights in 1995. 10.The goal of the project is to create a river crossing in Washington County,Minnesota to western St. Croix County,Wisconsin to serve significant transportation needs. This goal did not materially change from 1995 to 2006. 11. The identifying numbers for the project used by Mn/DOT were the same or similar in 1995 and 2006. 12. The description of the project did not materially change between 1995 and 2006. 13.Minnesota Session Laws 2001,Chapter 191 H.F.No. 1973,the legislation which amended the municipal consent statutes, states in§10,"This act is effective the day following final • enactment and applies to highway construction projects for which municipal approval is first sought after that date." (Emphasis added). The dispute between the parties arises out of the meaning of this sentence. 14. Based on the record and the submissions and arguments of counsel,the Court finds that the project as it was in 1995 and as it currently exists is in substance and purpose substantially the same project and therefore,since it was first submitted for municipal approval prior to the enactment of the 2001 legislative changes to the municipal consent process,the prior statute, Minn. Stat. §161.17, §§161.171 — 177(2000), should apply for the current municipal consent process. Based upon the forgoing Findings of Fact,the Court hereby makes the following: 4 •. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. No material issue of fact is in dispute between the parties. Rather,the parties request a determination as to what is the applicable law governing the municipal consent process. The City argues that the current project is substantially the same as the project first submitted for municipal approval in 1995. The State argues that the project in its current form has been changed and therefore cannot be the same project as it was in 1995. The Court determines that the statute's effective date is unambiguous.Therefore,the Court will give the words their ordinary and plain meaning. The statute states that the"act is effective the day following final enactment and applies to highway construction projects for which municipal approval is first sought after that date." The Court determines that the current project at issue in this case is materially and substantially the same project as it was in 1995 when it was first • submitted for municipal approval. And because the project was first submitted for approval in 1995,the new legislation does not apply to any subsequent municipal approval process if the project remains the same. Based upon the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Court hereby makes the following: ORDER 1. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED. The Court hereby determines that the St.Croix River Project("the project")identified within the St.Croix River Crossing Project Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement released June 16,2006,to be a continuation of the same"project"as identified by the 1995 Final Environmental Impact Statement with a Record of Decision formally issued on July 10, 41111 5 • 1995. The Court further determines that the Commission of Transportation first sought municipal consent from the City of Oak Park.Heights for the project in 1995. The Court determines that Mimi. Stat. §161.17, §161.171— 177(2000)and§473.81(2000)apply to and govern the municipal consent process relative to the project and control any submissions on • behalf of the State of Minnesota,by the Commissioner of Transportation,to the City of Oak Park Heights for layout approvals under the statutory municipal consent process cited above. 2. Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, converted to a motion for summary judgment,is hereby DENIED. 3. Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery is hereby DENIED as moot. 4. All other requested relief is hereby DENIED. 5. The Washington County Court Administrator shall serve a true and correct copy of this Order by U.S.Mail upon the above-named parties. • LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY BY THE COURT: t)//g)0 7 Date B. William Ekstrum Judge of District Court I hereby certify that the foregoing Order constitutes the Judgment and Decree of the Court. DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATOR Dated: V,\\AOA Deputy • 6 2007/07/09 13:08:41Bonestroo — (651) 636-1311 Page: 002 of 003 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WASHINGTON City of Oak Park Heights, a Minnesota municipal corporation, r DISTRICT COURT FAMILY COURT DIVISION TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: 14/Other Civil Court File No. C0-06-006815 AFFIDAVIT OF DENNIS POSTLER, BONESTROO,CONSULTING ENGINEERS Plaintiff, FOR THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS and State of Minnesota,by its Commissioner of Transportation. Defendants. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) Dennis Postler, upon being first duly sworn on oath deposes and states that he is a licensed consulting engineer employed by Bonestroo. That Bonestroo has served as City Engines s for the City of Oak Park Ileights since 1967. That your affiant and his offices have reviewed the plans submitted as part of the St. Croix River Crossing Trunk Highway 36 Improvement Project advocated by the Minnesota Department of Transportation from the early 1980's through the present date. That your affiant has supplied a memorandum to the office of the City Attorney, annexed hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein, detailing the engineering analysis of the so called significant changes contained in Exhibit"A" attached to the Defendant's motion to dismiss in this matter. That your affiant, as City Engineer, having reviewed the drawings and documents submitted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation relative to the 2006 plans in relationship to the 1995 approved lay out from to City of Oak Park Heights,is of the opinion that the changes are insignificant and do not change the overall scope or the lay out of the project as originally • 2007/07/09 13:08:41Bonestroo - (651) 636-1311 Page: 003 of 003 • advocated to the City of Oak Park Heights by the Minnesota Department of Transportation in its 1995 submission for lay out approval under the municipal consent statute. FURTHER-THAN THIS YOUR AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. 416.110/ Dennis Postler Subscribed and sworn to before me this -I day of July, 2007. a 'Th ; < PATRICIA J.WEGENER • j� / / I/�} .�' ';' ;.= NOTARY PUBLIC-IrMIMNBOTA Notary Public J I, •c ,i III . • • • 1111 2 • EXHIBIT "A" OS Memorandum • Bonestroo To: Mark Vierling Project: SCRB Crossing&Highway Date: 7/6/2007 2335 Highway 36 W 36 Improvements St.Paul,MN 55113 From: Dennis Postler Client City of Oak Park Heights Tel 651-636-4600 Re: Analysis of MnDOT'Change"Items—Appendix A of Fax 651-636-1311 6121107 Memorandum In Support of Defendant's Motion File No: 55-07-000 www.honeshoo.cam To Dismiss As directed,the 1995 and 2006 St.Croix River Bridge Crossing plans were reviewed to analyze any significant changes of the nine items noted as'Change'under the Municipal Consent Category in Exhibit A of MnDOT's June 21,2007 Memorandum In Support Of Defendant's Motion To Dismiss. For each highlighted item,the two plans were compared to identify changes in geometries or other construction issues,particularly as it relates to the main scope of the project,that being the SCRB Crossing and modifications to Trunk Highway 36. Below are theresults of our review. (The changes as described on the attached sheet are in italics. In addition,the number system corresponds to the attachment) 1. The river bridge crossing location was revised from the 1995 design to be more perpendicular to the river. The location of the new crossing is now slightly downstream from the 1995 plan. The bridge was moved slightly downstream in the 2006 plans. Where is crosses the • realigned portion of T.H.95,it appears the bridge was moved approximately 90' southerly due to a slightly Larger horizontal curve being utilized. The location where the proposed bridge exits Oak Park Heights'shoreline is virtually unchanged. These revisions are not significant to the City of OPH in relation to any proposed geometries. Also,this modification to the river crossing did not alter any impacts to buildings or structures within Oak Park Heights. 2. Geometries and profiles were revised on TH 36 and east of Osgood to tie into new bridge crossing location. The roadway shifted slightly to tie into the new bridge. As noted above,it appears a slightly larger horizontal curve is incorporated in the 2006 plan. However,there are no significant changes such as additional lanes or increasing/decreasing any radii by a noticeable amount. The drawings we have only show plan view;therefore,we are unable to comment on the revised profiles. 3. South frontage mad was revised to avoid impacts to new town home complex just west of Oakgreen. The 1995 plan had the frontage road adjacent to the right-of-way for Oakgreen Avenue. The 2006 plans moved the road approximately 10 feet from the right-of-way. The geometries and shape of the roadway are basically identical between the two plans. • • 6.Added the Beach Road overpass which removed the north frontage road between Osgood Avenue and TH.95. Also the south frontage road was extended to Stagecoach Trail. The 1995 plan removed the Beach Road overpass from the project. The 2006 plans show this overpass as part of the project.The proposed overpass is located west of the existing Beach Road Bridge. The construction of this bridge would result in an increase to the overall project cost. The 1995 plans show a north frontage road extending between Osgood Avenue and T.H.95. In the 2006 plans the existing north frontage road at this location is closed and terminates into the Washington County Government Center Campus. The 1995 plans show a south frontage road ending at a cul-de-sac between Osgood Avenue and Beach Road. The 2006 plan extends the frontage road to Stagecoach Trail. These revisions will obviously affect local traffic flow and hopefully positively affect (reduce)traffic on Hwy.36 and on Hwy.95. These modifications do not alter any geometries to the 1995 plans for Highway 36 or the proposed bridge. Additionally,no existing buildings/structures are being affected by these modifications. 10.The railroad line between TH.95 and the Sunny Side Condo complex is being realigned. It appears the railroad line is being realigned to allow for incorporating a grade separated crossing for access to the MCES Treatment Plant and Sunnyside Condo complex. While this is a modification(improvement)for access to these sites,there 41111° are no impacts to the overall geometric improvements on Highway 36 or Highway 95. 94.Ponding areas are provided on the east side of T.H.95 near Sunnyside,west side of TH.95 at the south end of the project area. Ponds were also revised/added in the TH 95/TH36 interchange. The pond south of the new river bridge location was moved from the 9995 location (under the bridge)to its current location,pond was enlarged The 2006 plans have relocated,enlarged and added some ponding areas in comparison to the 1995 plans. In the eleven years between the two plan sets,more environmental issues and regulations related to water quality and quantity have been implemented and need to be accounted for in publicly designed projects. As a result of these regulations,additional right-of-way will be required to handle the storm water runoff. The addition of the ponds is not a significant change in the plans and do not affect the geometric design of the highway improvements. 16.Reconstruction of tie downs into existing side streets(either xt nde dor shorthetne d). from Lookout Trail connection to TH.95 modified(due to steep g g) 9 lY T.H.95. The tie in connection at Omaha Avenue N.was approximately 40'in the 1995 plans and has been extended to approximately 60'in the 2006 plans. This is a very minor modification. The entrance into Sunny Side Marina is changing from the 1995 plans which had construction extending only approximately 20'. In the 2006 plans the intersecction is moved slightly northerly and tie down improvements are extending approximaly 350' Page 2 of 4 into the entrance of Sunny Side Marina. Additionally,a new'park access"road is • proposed off the Sunnyside entrance,road to the existing Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility(proposed Stillwater park). All of these improvements/modifications are in the City of Stillwater,and do not Impact geometrics on T.H.95. The entrance to Lookout Trail was changed in 2006 to a(southbound)right-in only. This modification is also in the City of Stillwater. It does slightly alter the geometries on T.H.95 by allowing a raised median to be constructed in the centerline in this area. The tie downs to T.H.95 in Stillwater have been shortened approximately 950'in the 2006 plans in comparison to the 1995. These revisions will have some minor impacts to local traffic flow. These modifications do not alter any geometries to the 1995 plans for Highway 36 or the proposed bridge. Additionally,no existing buildings/structures are being affected by these modifications. 17. Trail was added along the west side of TH.95 from Pickett Avenue into Bayport This is a very minor revision with no impacts to the geometries of T.H.95 or Hwy.36. In summary,none of the nine items noted as"Change"(under the Municipal Consent Category in Exhibit A of MnDOTs June 21,2007 Memorandum In Support Of Defendant's Motion To Dismiss)significantly alter the proposed improvements to Highway 36 or the SCRB Crossing from the 1995 plans to the 2006 plans. Cc: Eric A.Johnson,Oak Park Heights • • Page 3 of 4 ECKBERG • CANNERS I , ATTORNEYS AT LAW Stillwater Office: 1809 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 • (651)439-2878 Writer's Direct Dial: Fax(651)439-2923 f (651)351-2118 Hudson Office: j Writer's E-mail: 2417 Monetary Boulevard mvierling @eckberglammers.com Hudson,Wisconsin 54016 (715)386-3733 November 6,2007 Fax(651)439-2923 www,eckberglammers.com Mr.Nick Thompson Area Manager Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville,MN 55113-3174 . IIIRe: City of Oak Park Heights St. Croix River Crossing Project Status Dear.Mr.Thompson: Following the determination of the District Court in Washington County as it reflects Court File No, 82-C0-06-006815,I understand that you have been in contact with the City requesting additional follow up meetings with regard to the potential for a discussion or drafting of a cooperative Memorandum of Understanding or agreement between the City of Oak Park Heights and MnDOT relative to the above- referenced project. Before re-initiating any discussions along those lines, the City would need the following from your offices: 1. The City will require that individuals with the authority to bind the Department of Transportation to any agreements attend and be present for all such discussions. We require an advance letter from either the Commissioner's office identifying the persons assigned who have authority to bind the E Department as part of those discussions. • . : •ECKBERG. LAMMERS, BRIGGS,WOLFF f VIERLING. FLU' Family Law/Divorce • Business and Commercial Law • Criminal Law • Personal Injury/Wrongful Death Estate Planning/Probate • Real Estate • Land Use Law • Mediation • Municipal 1_aw • Civil Litigation Mr.Nick Thompson • November 6,2007 Page 2 of 2 2. We suggest that you provide an identification of issues that you consider as remaining that need discussion between the City and the Department relative to this project. 3. We require an identification from the Department as to how the project will be funded relative to any aspect that would otherwise be regarded by the Department as a local community expense. Relative to same,we also require the following information: a. The Department's identification of those elements of the project which the Department now regards as a local government unit expense. b. The Department's projection of the cost relative to each of those elements and the assumptions,if any have been made,relative t6 projecting that cost. /1 4. Now that the determination of the appropriate statutory requirement for trunk highway approval and municipal consent has been determined by the Court,what is the Department's projection as to when the process for local consent and trunk highway improvement under the former statute will be initiated with the affected communities within this jurisdiction relative to this project? 5. I refer you to your files and a copy of which I presume you have within your file of the correspondence of February 25,2005 directed from the City of Oak Park Heights to Mr.Rick Arnebeck , (your predecessor in your position) with regard to the City's equ' ementss or inclusion of elements within any proposed MOU. We require the Department make conuni cent or address each of those elements before we would agree to schedule any more earings or me gs relative to this matter. Yo s ve P-.i , _-■ ark J.Vierling MJV/sdb cc: Eric Johnson, City Administrator • iI •i r I 40,4ESOTy Minnesota Department of Transportation Do yaO y1 ir Metropolitan District �MOFraPa Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 • Roseville MN 55113-3174 June 30, 2008 Eric Johnson City Administrator Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd N Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Re: St. Croix River Crossing Project Municipal Consent and Letting Status Dear Mr. Johnson: Thank you for your letter of November 6, 2007. As you note, the iisOak Park Heights in 1995 that the Commissioner of Transportation sought municipal consent and that Minn. Stat. sections 161.17, 161.171-177 (2000) governed and still govern the municipal consent process with Oak Park Heights. • The City of Oak Park Heights granted municipal consent on August 14, 1995 in resolution 95- 08-39. During the City's 2006 complaint in District Court, Oak Park Heed eights 1995 end the Court that there are no significant differences between the layout app current layout dated July 18, 2005 and that the project is unchanged as to the trunk highway elements within Oak Park Heights. Therefore,the next step for Mn/DOT in the municipal consent process with the City, in accordance with Minnesota Statute 161.177(2000), is "the submission of a copy of as complete a set of construction plans as is possible,which will be issued to prospective bidders and in accordance with the project layout plan." With the new State Transportation Funding and requirements enacted by the 2008 legislature, Mn/DOT has established a construction start date of fall 2013, for this project. defined in 161.177(2000)will be submitted to the City when they are completed and not less then 120 days before project bids are received. Mn/DOT will continue to work with the city to provide u issues project jest information as it is known and work with the City on local funding and oth Sincere ick Thompson • East Area Manager cc: Mayor and City Council Members Mark Vierling, City Attorney Susan Mulvihill,Mn/DOT Acting District Engineer Fire An equal opportunity employer .r � • STIIrLNvAT€iZ RESOLUTION 2006-240 RESOLUTION FOR LAYOUT APPROVAL (ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING) At a Meeting of the City Council of the City of Stillwater, held on the 31st day of October 2006, the following Resolution was offered by Councilmember Polehna and seconded by Councilmember Junker to wit: WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation has prepared a final layout for the St. Croix River Crossing Project's construction of a new crossing of the St. Croix River between the City of Oak Park Heights in Washington County, Minnesota and the Town of St. Joseph in St. Croix County, Wisconsin. The project also includes reconstruction of associated roadways in both states, as well as construction in Stillwater and Bayport, Minnesota. Project Termini: a point 700 feet east of the TH 5/TH 36 interchange in Minnesota and a point 100 feet southwest of I• the 150th Avenue overpass on STH 35/64 in Wisconsin; and seeks the approval within the City thereof: and WHEREAS, said project's final layouts have been provided to the City and are on file in the Minnesota Department of Transportation office, Waters Edge, Roseville, Minnesota, being • marked, labeled and identified as S.P. 8214-114 (TH 36) Layout 2A, Part A; Layout 3, Part B; Layout 3, Part C; all dated 7/18/05; and WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 9/8/06 has been developed i between the City and Mn/DOT which defines the project's cost participation, right of way, construction, operations and maintenance responsibilities, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said final layouts and MOU for the improvement of said Trunk Highway within the corporate limits is hereby approved. Upon the call of the roll the following Council Members voted in favor of the Resolution: Councilmembers Polehna, Milbrandt, Harycki, Junker and Mayor Kimble • The following Council Members voted against its adoption: • None Adopted by the Stillwater City Council this 31st day of October, 2006 < < �� Or% mble, Mayor ATTEST: Z/66?..g• dG%Z�2 Diane F. Ward, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WASHINGTON CITY OF STILLWATER' I do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution • presented to and adopted by the Council of the City of Stillwater Minnesota at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 31st day of October, 2006, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. (SEAL) Diane F.Ward, City Clerk • ' THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA e CERTIFICATION • State of Minnesota ) County of Washington ) ■ 0 . City of Stillwater ) • I, Diane F.Ward, City Clerk of the City Of Stillwater, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the attached RESOLUTION 2006-240, RESOLUTION FOR LAYOUT APPROVAL (ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING), is a true and correct copy of said resolution on file in the office of the City Clerk. � Cc � & "--- Diane F. Ward, City Clerk SEAL I 111 CITY HALL:216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER,MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE:651-430-8800 • WEBSITE:www.ci.stillwatermn.us ,t I .e-r- r, .. U, Zug(, , 0 i MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) This MOU is for the St. Croix River Crossing Project,hereinafter"project" located between the City of Oak Park Heights in Washington County,Minnesota and the Town of St. Joseph in St.Croix County,Wisconsin. The project also includes construction in Stillwater and Bayport. This MOU is made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, De artment of Transportation(Mn/DOTI,hereinafter referred to as"Mn/DOT" and the City of Stillwater,hereinafter referred to as the"City'; WHEREAS,Mn/DOT has prepared and presented the project's layout plan, environmental documentation,Visual Quality Manual(anticipated in Fall of 2006 completion) and cost estimates to the City for the project. WHEREAS,the current Mn/DOT Staff Approved layout dated 7/18/05 has ,-11111 revisions from the layout presented to and approved by the City for the previous 1995 project through City resolution 95-39; and, WHEREAS,during the current project development process a number of issues have arisen which the parties hereto have discussed,and desire to resolve to writing;and, WHEREAS,Minn. Stat:161.20 Subd.2(2004)authorizes the Commissioner of . Transportation to make agreements with and cooperate with a governmental authority for the purpose of preserving future trunk highway corridors or constructing,maintaining and improving the Trunk Highway System; and WHEREAS, Mn/DOT is required to seek municipal consent from the City for the project. This MOU supersedes any previous MOU's developed for the 1995 project and i will be part of the City's municipal approval for the project and become binding on the Iparties once the MOU and City's municipal approval are granted by council resolution i and the MOU is signed by Mn/DOT and the City. III i Stillwater MOU—9/8/06 Page 1 of 11 NOW,THEREFORE,the parties hereto state as follows: III 1) Municipal Approval • a) The City approved the 1995 project layout with City resolution 95-39. The project will utilize Minnesota Statute 161.164(2005)when requesting municipal consent. b) Timing—Mn/DOT will submit the project layout to the City for municipal approval after project and local funding issues are defined. 2) Funding a) Project funding—The project is currently included in Mn/DOT's 2008-2030 Transportation System Plan for construction in the year 2024. Mn/DOT plans to seek construction funding to allow for the commencement of the project construction as early as 2010. Currently,$25 million of Federal SAFETEA-LU funding is available to the state DOT's for pre-construction phase related activities. As this funding allows, some project elements and mitigation items will be implemented sooner than 2024. �• b) Local cost participation—the City has limited resources available to cover the identified project's local cost participation. c) Federal High Priority Project(HPP)Funds—Federal HPP funds are identified for this project in the federal 2005-2009 SAFETEA-LU Act. The HPP funds were allocated for,and it is Mn/DOT's intent to,utilize these funds to the maximum extent allowed to cover 80%of the projects local cost participation. The required 20%local match to these federal dollars has not yet been identified, but is anticipated to come from state and local sources. d) Cost Exceptions-Mn/DOT will pursue exceptions to its cost participation policy where justified to reduce the City's cost share. e) Project Financial Strategies Planning—the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)and the two state DOT's will be undertake financial strategies planning for the project. Part of these discussions will be the issue of identifying funds to address the City's unmet financial obligations for the project's local cost participation. Stillwater MOU—9/8/06 Page 2 of 11 • • 3) Identified local cost artici ation items—local cost participation guidance for the J ro'ect is defined by Mn/DOT's Guidelines for Cooperative Construction p Projects,April 2004. For the project,the following items identify a local cost element. a) City utilities disrupted by construction—Minnesota Statute 161.45 and 61.4 govern utility owner responsibilities for utilities that are on highway right-of-way by permit and are impacted by highway construction. The City has water and sewer lines in the R/W that will be impacted by the project. The estimated costs to relocate the City utilities are identified in the attached utilities cost table. b) Traffic signals—local cost participation for warranted traffic signals is split traffic according to the roadway jurisdiction of each leg of the intersection. signals are currently identified;three at the Oakgreen/Greeley intersections with the south frontage road,TH 36, and the north frontage road;one at the • Osgood/TH 36 intersection;two at the TH 36/TH 95 interchange ramp intersections,and one at the TH95/CSAH 28(Pickett Ave.)intersection. Cost participation breakdowns by intersection are identified in the attached cost table. Power and maintenance ai responsibilities also incur local cost and are shown in the attached cost estimate table. c) Aesthetics—the cost of project aesthetics sometimes have a local project cost component;however aesthetics for this project are one of the identified mitigation items and a budgeted amount has been determined for project aesthetics. At time no local cost participation for aesthetics is anticipated.The aesthetics for the i project will be based off of the VQM. d) Stormwater Ponds—the design and maintenance of the project's ponds will be LEngineers,MnDNR,and the MnPCA of En in accordance with US Corp requirements. Local cost participation for construction and maintenance of storm water ponds are determined based off of contributing flows entering each pond. The City has contributing flows entering storm water ponds that will be constructed as part of this project. The City's estimated city storm water related cost is shown in the attached utilities cost table. Stillwater MOO—9/8/06 Page 3 of 11 , , • 4) Design elements of the project—the design details for the project are identified in the environmental documentation(including the 2006 Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement),the project's"Mn/DOT Staff Approved Layout" dated July 18,2005 and in the Visual Quality Manual(VQM)(anticipated in Fall of 2006). The environmental documentation describes the project and it's social, economic, and environmental impacts and includes the determination of a Preferred Alternative Package. The layout includes details that define roadway geometries, cross-sectional elements,trail locations,intersection treatments,traffic signal locations,bridges,roadway profiles, and other project details. The following are items that additional definition is provided or are not covered in the environmental documentation, layout or VQM. a) Signing— i) City Entrance(VQM Community Gateway areas),describes areas of opportunity for locating municipal identification entrance signs and aesthetic treatments within the City. (ip ii) Amended Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement(MOA)section IV.D.l.b.: a. "Provided that adequate space is available,as determined by Mn/DOT, the City of Stillwater will install a municipal identification entrance sign for the City on northbound TH 95 at the Stillwater city limit in accordance with the VQM. The municipal identification entrance sign will include a reference to the Stillwater Commercial Historic District. Mn/DOT will determine if sufficient property is available outside the clear zone for installation and maintenance of the municipal identification entrance sign by the City." b) Landscaping- The City will be invited by Mn/DOT to be on the VQM Advisory Committee throughout the final design phase. c) Stormwater ponds—the design and maintenance of the project's ponds will be in accordance with US Corp of Engineers,MnDNR,and the MnPCA requirements. 5) 4(f) Letter of Agreement: A 4(f)letter of Agreement was signed 6/16/05 between Mn/DOT and the City for the proposed uses in Lowell Park,Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility Property,and Kolliner Park. • Stillwater MOU—9/8/06 Page 4 of I 1 • 6) Project Mitigation—The 2006 Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement(SFEIS)contains the preferred alternative mitigation items in Table l 5-2 that is attached to this MOU. Additional mitigation item details are provided in the SFEIS through the Amended Section 106 MOA(dated 5/15/06),the Riverway MOU (dated 4/11/06),the Growth Management MOU (dated 4/11/06), the Water Quality MOU(dated 3/9/06), and the Xcel Energy MOU (dated 10/11/05)and elsewhere in the SFEIS. From those documents,the following are a summary description of mitigation items in the City. a) Amended Section 106 MOA—mitigation for historic properties and archeological resources within the City,including: i) Stillwater Lift Bridge: (1) Mn/DOT continues ownership,maintenance and operations of Lift Bridge. (2) Establish Stillwater Lift Bridge Advisory Committee. The City will be invited to the Stillwater Lift Bridge Advisory Committee(SLBAC). (3) Perform condition assessment. Develop operations and maintenance manual (4) Develop Lift Bridge Management Plan (5) Establish endowment fund for operation and maintenance (6) Capital improvements with conversion to pedestrian/bicycle facility ii) Bergstein Shoddy Mill and Warehouse—the project will require the relocation or demolition of these buildings. Mn/DOT will implement either one. The City has agreed through a June 7,2005 City council motion to provide a site for the relocation of these buildings and is willing to take over any future maintenance responsibilities. The City has developed a proposed site assessment report,dated January 2006,that describes the location and site improvements necessary. The relocation site proposed is where the Terra Terminal building is currently located. iii) Stillwater Commercial Historic District: • (1) Enhanced signage from new bridge and roadways to downtown Stillwater Stillwater MOO-9/8/06 Page 5 of 11 (2) Construction communication plan • (3) Optimize parking on Chestnut and Main Streets iv) Stillwater Cultural Landscape District: (1) Complete and distribute illustrated study of Cultural Landscape District v) South Main Archaeological District(Slab Alley and Hersey Bean): (1) Protect and stabilize Hersey and Bean Archaeological Site prior to use for staging (2) Avoid and minimize effects to historic resources in design of loop trail vi) Nomination of Minnesota Historic Properties within the city: (1) Bergstein Shoddy Mill and Warehouse and the South Main Archaeological District vii)Stillwater Lift Bridge Publication:illustrated book on Lift Bridge viii) Field guide to Stillwater Cultural Landscape District b) Riverway MOU—mitigation for riverway impacts within the city,including: i) Removal of the Terra Terminal Building: Due to recent vandalism issues,the City desires the removal the Terra Terminal Building as soon as possible. Mn/DOT will take the lead role in implementing this mitigation item. The proposed funding for this removal item will be 80%federal SAFETEA-LU HPP funds. Unless another source is determined,the 20%local match will be the City's responsibility. Coordination by the City and Mn/DOT for the removal and site re-development will occur with the NPS,Mn/DNR,and Mn/SHPO. ii) Kolliner Park: removal of non-historic elements to allow reversion to"natural state", according to the 4(f)Letter of Agreement. iii) Loop Trail system—In accordance with the 4(f)Letter of Agreement,a loop trail is shown on the layout and further described in the SFEIS and VQM.The layout and VQM describe the major project design features of the trail. The City has reviewed and provided comments on the trails' design in the City and will be further involved in the detail design phase of the trail if further refinement is needed. Mn/DOT will construct the Loop Trail as one of the mitigation items for the project. • Stillwater MOU—9/8/06 Page 6 of 11 11111: i 0 Growth Management MOU: mitigation for growth management items within the City,including: i) Transit feasibility study. The City will be invited to participate in this study to consider and evaluate future transit demand in Washington, St.Croix and Polk Counties. d) Water Quality MOU: Establishes a Water Quality Management Advisory Committee for construction permitting of the water quality related items. The City will be invited to participate in the Water Quality Management Advisory Committee. 7) Construction Stain and Construction issues a) The project defined in the SFEIS is one project.Depending upon funding availability,Mn/DOT will discuss project-staging issues with the City and other stakeholders to define the sequencing of project elements. Early implementation Ill of mitigation items,construction of the Oakgreen/Greeley intersection, City utility C relocation,frontage road construction and other project elements will be l considered. b) It is understood and agreed that there will be stakeholder involvement or some other similar arrangement will be formed so that the local governments affected by the construction project will have input at an early stage of the construction staging planning process. c) A"project implementation committee"will be formed and meet monthly to I discuss project progression,upcoming activities,and work to resolve issues during the construction phase. d) Any construction staging related impacts to the barge repair business located in the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility Property will be coordinated with the City. Given a 6 month notice by Mn/DOT,the City will discontinue their lease agreement with the barge repair business as necessary for project construction activities. e) Use of the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility property for a project staging area will be appraised at a fair market value,with a temporary easement value 1 Stillwater MOU—9/8/06 Page 7of11 determined by a process similar as to what was completed for the$5M Lift Bridge Repair Project. As such,use of access roads to the staging area will be compensated through a zero dollar permit from the City. f) Use of other appropriate City owned property necessary for Right of Way and/or trail construction of the project within the City,will be at no cost to Mn/DOT, including any necessary easements.Mn/DOT will coordinate the timing of the construction use with the City. 8) Maintenance a) Mn/DOT desires to turn-back facilities constructed with the project that serve primarily a local function,i.e.the frontage roads along TH 36,TH 36 between Main Street and the Lift Bridge and Lookout Trail. b) Mn/DOT will retain ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the Lift Bridge according to the Amended Section 106 MOA. c) Following construction,the City will'take on ownership and maintenance of the north frontage road along TH 36 from TH 5 to Osgood Avenue,Lookout Trail, and TH 36 between Main Street and the Lift Bridge. d) Following construction of the Loop Trail,ownership,operation and maintenance of the Loop Trail in the City will be the city's responsibility. The City will also be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Loop Trail from the southerly limit of Stillwater to the center of the new river crossing bridge. e) The City will also maintain the trail connecting the Loop.Trail to the Scenic Overlook in the city. f) Stormwater Ponds—The Water Resources Preliminary Design Report,dated January 2006 contains eleven stormwater ponds that are proposed in Minnesota with the project that will treat combined highway and local water. Mn/DOT will own and maintain nine of the ponds,the City will perform routine maintenance on the"Sunnyside"pond,and Oak Park Heights will maintain the"Riverside"pond. The cost of future major pond maintenance activities will split based on contributing flows. ■ • Stillwater MOU—9/8/06 Page8of11 • 9) Agreements a) A Cooperative Construction Agreement between the city and Mn/DOT will be needed during the final design stage to define maintenance responsibilities and any cost sharing needs as described in this MOU. b) Signal Agreements between Mn/DOT and City(and may include the County)will be needed for each signal installation and will cover construction costs, maintenance and power responsibilities. Existing signal agreements if still applicable may continue to be used. See attached chart that shows both existing signal agreements and proposed agreements and maintenance responsibilities. c) Turn-back Agreements,as applicable,for any roadway facilities will be needed. Before this MOU will become affective,it must be approved along with the City's municipal consent for the project and be signed and approved by Mn/DOT. 4111 Subsequent agreements between the City and Mn/DOT as defined in Item 9 are also required to cover some elements of this MOU. { S Stillwater MOU—9/8/06 Page 9 of 11 • DEPARTMENT OF T' NSPORTATION CITY OF STILLWATER By: /�� B ! '� Metro District Engineer �ayor Khani Sahebjam Jay L. Kimble Date: /1/3/0( Date: /d.3/e94, By: Administrator Larry D. Hansen Date: L I— 1 — d la Attachments to MOU • Preferred Alternative layout on aerial photo dated 4/24/06 • Local Cost Participation Tables: o Utilities(Sanitary Sewer&,Storm Sewer&Ponds,Signal Systems)— Preliminary Cost Impacts dated 10/26/06 o Traffic Signal Construction Costs/Maintenance Responsibilities dated May 2,2006 • SFEIS Table 15-2 Summary of Preferred Alternative Mitigation Items dated June 2006 Stillwater MOU—9/8/06 Page 10 of 11 • Filename:P:�rtyfles\stcroixrivercrossingUnemorandumofunderstanding-Stillwater-9 8 06a.doc 0 1 Stillwater MOU—9/8/06 Page l l of 1 l iliwatet • -•=i;; ===ik\ THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA • CERTIFICATION State of Minnesota ) County of Washington ) City of Stillwater ) I, Diane F.Ward, City Clerk of the City Of Stillwater, Minnesota, do hereby certify • that the attached RESOLUTION 2006-239,APPROVAL MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU), is a true and correct copy of said resolution on file in the office of the City Clerk. 5 i 01: AD4--> Diane F. Ward, City Clerk SEAL 111 CITY HALL:216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER,MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE:651-430-8800 • WEBSITE:www.ci.stillwater.mn.us • • RESOLUTION 2006-. 239 •. APPROVAL MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Stillwater, MN that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Stillwater and State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)relating to the St. Croix River Crossing, as on file with the City Clerk, is hereby approved and authorizes the Mayor and City Administrator to sign said agreement. Adopted by the Stillwater City Council this 31st day of October, 2006. i Sa..-_a/ 're Mayor ATTEST: ��G�✓mil'�. Diane F. Ward, City Clerk • • e Ay fain- • RESOLUTION NO. 07-06 EXTRACT OF THE MIND TES ASHINGTON COUNTyE�MINNESOTA ELD THE CITY OF BAYPOR JANUARY 8,2007 Pursuant to due call and notice therefore,a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bayport,Minnesota was duly held at Bayport City Hall in said municipality on the 8th day of January,2007,at 6:00 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Nowaczek,Councilmembers Carlson, Johnson and Kraftson The following members were absent: Councilmember Ridgway Councilmember Kraftson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION,CITY OF BAYpOR ,WASHINGTON CROSSING NG PROJECT'S FINAL MINNESOTA, APPROVING THE ST.CROIX RIVER LAYOUT WHEREAS,the Commissioner of Transportation has prepared a final layout for the St. III Croix River Crossing Project's construction of a new crossing of the St. Croix River between the City of Oak Park Heights in Washington County,Minnesota and the Town of St.Joseph in St. Croix County,Wisconsin. The project also includes reconstruction of associated roadways in both states,as well as construction in Stillwater and Bayport, Minnesota. Project Termini: a point 700 feet east of the TH 5/TH 36 interchange in I Minnesota and a point 100 feet southwest of the 150th Avenue overpass on STH 35/64 in I Wisconsin;and seeks the.approval within the City thereof: and WHEREAS,said project's final layouts have been provided to the City and are on file in the Minnesota Department of Transportation office,Waters Edge,Roseville,Minnesota, being marked,labeled and identified as S.P. 8214-114(TH 36)Layout 2A,Part A; 1 Layout 3,Part B;Layout 3,Part C;all dated 7/18/05;and WHEREAS,a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU)dated 10/26/06 has been developed between the City and Mn/DOT which defines the project's cost participation, ty right of way,construction,operations and maintenance responsibilities;and • NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that said final layouts and MOU for the improvement of said Trunk Highway within the corporate limits is hereby approved. The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carlson and upon roll call being taken thereon,the following vote via voice: • Jonathan Nowaczek—aye Connie Carlson—aye Dan Johnson—aye Torry Kraftson—aye • WHEREUPON, said Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Administrator. Passed by the City Council, City of Bayport, Washington County,Minnesota this 8th day of January,2007. ATTEST: 464/ I/ ' C Mike Guire, ityinistrator Jonathan Nowaczek,Mayor i • • 4111 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WASHINGTON CITY OF BAYPORT I do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Bayport,h Minnesota es the at rout s authorized meeting thereof held on the 8th day of January, of said meeting in my possession. (SEAL) .1.12.eddi Ari ichael McGuire,City Adminis .tor • • • • MEMORANDUM OF UNDER STANDING (MOU) STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF BAYPORT Pro ect, hereinafter "project" This MOU is for the St. Croix River Crossing � Minnesota and located between the City of Oak Park Heights in Washington County, the Town of St. Joseph in St. Croix County, Wisconsin. The project also includes construction in Stillwater and Bayport. This MOU is made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, De artment of Transportation (Mn/DOTI,hereinafter referred to as "Mn/DOT" and the Cites of Bayport,hereinafter referred to as the"City"; 'WHEREAS, Mn/DOT has prepared and presented the project's layout plan, environmental documentation, Visual Quality Manual (anticipated December 2006 completion)and cost estimates to the City for the project. have WHEREASarisen which,th during parties the current project development process a number tiof issues and • e hereto have discussed,and desire to resolve to wring; , WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. 161.20 Subd. 2 (2005) authorizes the Commissioner for Transportation to make agreements with and cooperate with a governmental authority the purpose of preserving future trunk highway corridors or constructing,maintaining and improving the Trunk Highway System;and WHEREAS, Mn/DOT is required to seek municipal consent from the City for the project because the project requires right of way within the City. This MOU will be part of the City's municipal approval for the project and become binding on the parties once the MOU and City's municipal approval are granted by council resolution and the MOU is signed by Mn/DOT and the City. • ' Bayport MOU—Dated 10/26/06 Page 1of6 NOW,THEREFORE,the parties hereto • o state as follows: 1) Municipal Approval of the project a) Municipal approval is being requested in accordance with Minnesota Statutes,161 (2005) - 161.162 to 161.167, which includes 161.164 "Final layout approval process". b) Timing—Mn/DOT will submit in the Fall of 2006, the "final layout" to the Ci for municipal approval once the issues outlined in this MOU are mutually tY to. y agreed 2) Desig11 elements of the protect—the design details for the project are the environmental documentation (including P 1 e identified Environmental Impact Statement), the project's "Mn/DOT g the 2006 Supplemental Final dated July 18, 2005 and in the Visual,Qualit a Staff Approved Layout" December 2006). The environmental documentation describes (anticipated et d in social, economic, and environmental impacts and includes the determination and it's a Preferred Alternative Package. mahon of a g The layout includes details that define roadway • geometries, cross-sectional elements, trail locations, intersection treatments, traffic signal locations,bridges,roadway profiles,and other project details. 3) F—g a) Project funding — The project is currently included in Mn/DOT's 2008-2030 Transportation System Plan for construction in the.year 2024. Mn/DOT plans seek construction funding to allow for the commencement of the project construction as early as 2010. Current! 2 P o funding is available to the state DOT's for of Federal.SAFETEA-LU pre-construction phase related activities. As this funding allows, some project elements and mitigation items will be implemented sooner than 2024. b) Local cost participation —it is acknowledged that the City has limited resources available to cover the identified project's local cost participation. Bayport MOU—Dated 10/26/06 • Page 2 of 6 • c) Cost Exceptions-Mn/DOT will pursue exceptions to its cost participation policy where justified to reduce the City's cost share. 4) Identified local cost participation items — local cost participation guidance for the project is defined by Mn/DOT's Guidelines for Cooperative Construction lo a cost Projects, April 2004. For the project, the following items identify element. a) Aesthetics — the cost of project aesthetics sometimes have a local project cost component;however aesthetics for this project are one of the identified mitigation items and a budgeted amount has been determined for project aesthetics. At this time no local cost participation for aesthetics, including a municipal entry sign, is anticipated.The aesthetics for the project will be based off of the VQM. b) Stormwater Ponds—the design and maintenance of the project's ponds will be in accordance with US Corp of Engineers, MnDNR, and the Local cost participation for construction and maintenance of storm water ponds are usually determined based off of contributing flows entering each storm water ponds that will be pond. The City has contributing flows entering P constructed as part of this project. The City's estimated city storm water related cost is shown in the attached utilities cost table. 5) Froiect Mitigation — The 2006 Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (SFEIS) contains the preferred alternative mitigation items in T1 ae that is attached to this MOU. Additional mitigation item details are pro SFEIS through the Amended Section 106 MOA(dated 5/15/06),the Riverway MOU (dated 4/11/06), the Growth Management MOU (dated 4/11/06), the Water Quality MOU (dated 3/9/06), and the Xcel Energy MOU (dated 10/11/05) and elsewhere in the SFEIS. Bayport MOU—Dated 10/26/06 Page 3 of 6 6) Bayport Trail Connection to Loo Trail • a) The project will construct a trail connecting the existing trail along the west side of TH 95 to re-aligned Pickett Avenue. This will allow a pedestrian connection between Bayport and the Loop Trail,which is a 5.6mile trail that will connect the new bridge and the Stillwater Lift Bridge. 7) Traffic Study of TH 95 in Ba wort a) The City has requested that a signal system be installed along TH 95 in the City. Therefore, Mn/DOT will undertake a traffic study of TH 95 in Bayport and at the intersection of TH 95/22nd Street North in West Lakeland Township. The study will evaluate recent crash type, occurrences, and frequency at each of the intersections between TH 95 and the local roads within the City and at 22nd Street North. Traffic volume information will also be reviewed. The study will determine if a new signal system is justified along TH 95 within the City or at 22nd Street North. The study will also recommend the appropriate location for a new signal system, if justified through the signal warrant analysis. This traffic • study will be done independent of the project. 8) Construction Sta in and Construction issues a) City involvement will be needed during the design of the project to work through local design issues. 9) Maintenance a) Trail: Following construction of the Bayport Trail Connection to the Loop Trail, ownership, operation and maintenance of that trail in the City will be the City's responsibility. b) Stormwater Ponds—North and South Picket Ponds (Routine Maintenance): Following construction of the drainage ponds on Mn/DOT right-of way, Mn/DOT will provide for routine maintenance and operation of the ponds located on Mn/DOT right-of-way without cost or expense to the City. Routine maintenance Bayport MOU—Dated 10/26/06 • Page 4 of 6 • will include but is not limited to insp ection, cleaning, and minor repair of drainage structures and pipes; maintenance of the turf and erosion control measures around the pond perimeter; and maintenance of wetlands as needed. tenance): on-Routine M ee c) Stormwater Ponds—North and South Picket Ponds (N of way,Mn/DOT Following construction of the drainage ponds on Mn/DOT will be the lead agency responsible for maintenance of pond inlets and outlets and perpetuate and capacity Y provide for pond sediment removal as needed to peril pond a ponds. Costs for maintenance that may be needed for these p other extraordinary sediment " extraordinary (or "non-routine") maintenance of ponds, including control and dredging, will be proportioned to Mn/DOT and the local units of government based on contributing flows to each pond. 10) Agree_m= a) A Cooperative Construction Agreement between the city and Mn/DOT will be needed during the final design stage to define maintenance responsibilities and fbany cost sharing needs as described in this MOU. Before this MOU will become affective, it must be approved along with the City's municipal consent for the project and be sign ed and approved by Mn/DOT. Subsequent agreements between the City and Mn/DOT as defined in Item 10 are also required to cover some elements of this MOU. • Bayport MOU—Dated 10/26/06 Page 5 of 6 DEPARTMENT OF ' I SPORTATIO • 1. Apil N CITY OF BAYPORT By: �i�„� By: ______L____417\L-)4-J ett oo District Engineer Mayor Khani Sahebjam Jon Nowaczek Date: / Date: /)7 c By. ` •/ ' Administrator Mike McGuire 1 Date:_ Attachments to MOU• Preferred Alternative layout on aerial photo dated 4/24/06 • SFEIS Table 15-2 Summ ary of Preferred Alternative Mitigation Items dated June 2006 • Local Cost Participation Tables: o Utilities (Sanitary Sewer& , Storm Sewer&Ponds, Signal Systems)- Preliminary Cost Impacts dated 10/26/06 Bayport MOU-Dated 10/26/06 O.. Page 6 of 6 161.17,2000 Minnesota Statutes Page 1 of 3 6)14Lfiw 2000 Minnesota Statutes This is a historical version of this statute section. Also view the most recent published version. 161.17 Interstate highway system; approval of plans. Subdivision 1. Repealed, 1969 c 312 s 8 Subd. 2 . Interstate system. (a) It is hereby declared that construction of the interstate system of highways will vitally affect the future development of the cities through which these routes pass and such municipalities should have an important role in the development of this highway system; that on the other hand the future planning and programming of construction projects over a period of years is necessary to take maximum advantage of federal aid and to build a unified and coordinated interstate system; that excessive delay in local approval of plans for construction of one segment may seriously • impede completion of the entire system and adversely affect other municipalities along the interstate routes; that the mutual exchange of information and close cooperation between the department and local governing bodies should be encouraged by improved administrative processes for securing orderly review of plans and the resolution of differences over interstate routes and projects; and that the provisions of sections 161 . 171 to 161 . 177 for local approval of trunk highway plans must be modified for the interstate highway system in the light of these various considerations. Before proceeding with the preparation of the final plans for the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of any route on the interstate system lying within any city, the commissioner shall submit to its governing body preliminary plans covering the route location. The preliminary plans shall be submitted as part of a report containing such supporting data that the commissioner deems helpful to the governing body in appraising the plans submitted. (b) Any public hearing on location of an interstate route • held in compliance with federal requirements shall be held at least one month after submission to the governing body of the httns://www.revisor.mn.eov/statutes/?id=161.17&year=2000 5/5/2011 161.17, 2000 Minnesota Statutes Page 2 of 3 report provided for in this subdivision. After the public hearing and on preparing final plans, the commissioner shall • submit the final plans to the governing body for approval . If the governing body does not approve the final plans within three months after submitted, the commissioner may refer the plans to (1) the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, if the project is within the area of its jurisdiction, or (2) the municipal advisory committee on state-aid rules established under section 162 . 09, subdivision 2 , if the project is elsewhere in the state. If a member of the advisory committee is from the municipality concerned that member shall be excused. If the plans are so referred, the commission or committee shall give the commissioner and the governing body ample opportunity to present the case for or against approval of the plans so referred. Not later than three months after such hearings and independent study as it deems desirable, it shall approve or disapprove such plans, making such additional recommendations consistent with state and federal requirements as it deems appropriate, and it shall submit a written report containing its findings and recommendations to the commissioner and the • governing body. The commissioner shall not proceed with the proposed construction, reconstruction, or improvement except in accordance with plans approved by the governing body or, if referred to the commission or committee, until after the commission or committee has made its report, and then only after the governing body has had an additional 90 days within which to consider the plans originally submitted or such modified plans as may be submitted to it by the commissioner following the report of the commission or committee. If within such 90-day period, the governing body does not approve the plans submitted to it, and if the commissioner then wishes to proceed with the project according to plans differing substantially from the plans recommended by the commission or committee in its report, the commissioner shall, before proceeding with the project, file a written report with the commission or committee and the governing body stating fully the reasons for doing so. Whenever plans are referred to the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, the commission shall be reimbursed from the trunk highway fund for actual and necessary expenses incurred by the • commission in staff work incident to consideration of plans and action thereon by the commission. Whenever plans are referred • •• ii -- - -- ----- - ---I-`-`--`-_In!i.-I i 1no------nnnn C/C/'1!111 161.17, 2000 Minnesota Statutes Page 3 of 3 to the advisory committee on rules, members of the committee • shall be paid their necessary expenses to the same extent and in the same manner as for its duties in considering the commissioner' s rules . HIST: 1959 c 500 art 2 s 17 ; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7 ; 1985 c 248 s 70; 1986 c 444; 1991 c 199 art 1 s 55 • • • httnsq/www_revisor.mn.gnv/statutes/?id=161.17&vear=2000 5/5/2011 161.171, 2000 Minnesota Statutes Page 1 of 2 2000 Minnesota Statutes This is a historical version of this statute section. Also view the most recent published version. 161.171 Routes through municipalities; definitions. Subdivision 1 . Scope. As used in sections 161 . 171 to 161 . 177 , the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them. Subd. 2 . Commissioner. "Commissioner" means the commissioner of transportation. Subd. 3 . Governing body of a municipality. "Governing body of a municipality" means the duly elected council of a municipality. Subd. 4 . Municipality. "Municipality" means any city within the state. • Subd. 5 . Metropolitan area. "Metropolitan area" includes the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington, presently under the jurisdiction, for metropolitan area planning and coordination purposes, of the metropolitan council established pursuant to chapter 473, which council is hereinafter referred to as "agency" . Subd. 6 . Layout plan. "Layout plan" means a preliminary plan for the proposed construction or reconstruction of a highway facility which plan indicates the proposed locations, elevation, width of lanes, and the type and location of proposed roadway intersections or interchanges together with 41" the approximate location, width, and length of bridges and the approximate right-of-way limits and access locations, where applicable. Subd. 7 . Construction plan. "Construction plan" means the plan sheets, profiles, typical cross sections and • supplemental drawings which show the location, character, .....•//unxnxr racr;cnr mn any/ctafiitec/?id=1 61.171&year=2000 5/5/2011 161.171, 2000 Minnesota Statutes Page 2 of 2 dimensions and details of the highway construction or IIIimprovement work to be done, and which are subsea tiallyspnctive conformance with the plan which will be submi bidders . HIST: 1969 c 312 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7 ; 1976 c 166 s 7 ; 1980 c 509 s 51 111 111 161.172, 2000 Minnesota Statutes Page 1 of 1 2000 Minnesota Statutes This is a historical version of this statute section. Also view the most • recent published version. 161.172 Municipalities to consent. (a) Except for routes on the interstate system, no state trunk highway or any part thereof, located within the corporate limits of any municipality, shall be constructed or improved in the manner specified in this section without the consent of the governing body of such municipality, unless the procedures prescribed by sections 161 . 172 to 161 . 177 shall have been followed by the commissioner of transportation. The highway improvements requiring consent are limited to those improvements which alter access, increase or reduce highway traffic capacity or require acquisition of permanent rights-of-way. shall not limit the _ g Y• This section traffic or install traffic ocontrol commissioner devices nor other traffic measures on trunk highways located within municipalities . (b) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as in any way limiting the commissioner' s discretion to determine the priority and programm ing of trunk highway construction. HIST: 1969 c 312 s 2; 1976 c 166 s 7; 1980 c 533 s 6 111 httns://www.revisor.mn.2ovistatutes/?id=161.172&year=2000 5/5/2011 , 161.173,2000 Minnesota Statutes Pagel of 2 2000 Minnesota Statutes • ion of this statute section. Also view the most This is a historical verse recent published version. 161.173 Submission of corridor proposal. The commissioner shall submit to the governing body of each is proposed to be municipality wherein a trunk highway each constructed or improved, and to the governing body r of of ea ea municipality adjacent to any such municipality, osed containing: a statement of the need for this prop construction or improvement, a description of alternate routes which were considered by the commissioner and route the advantages and disadvantages in the selection cofal any rout considered. The report shall also contain for profile, the following information: general alignment and p highway classification, an approximate points of access, planned approximate cost estimate, relation o°otherttransporptation regional and local development and to expected general 411 routes and facilities, and a statement ofrttherexpeited general effect on present and future use of the 1p P proposed to be corridor. Where a state trunk highway constructed or improved within the metropolitan area, ac copy of of the report shall also be submitted to report shall be sent to In all areas of the state a copy planning commissions established regional, county and municipal p the highway project. Not less than 45 in the area affected by reed, after nor more than 90 days, or as °tthe_commissioner shall hold a the report has been submitted, construction or public hearing on the proposed highway improvement at such time and place within any municipality wherein a portion of the proposed construction orti provement3is located, as the commissioner shall determine. days before the hearing the commissioner shall ailo notice thereof to the governing body of each municipality entitled to receive a copy of the report, and shall cause notice of the hearing to be published at least a once eeseachi week eforatwo • successive weeks in a newspaper or nthe second publication to be circulation in such municipalities, not less than five days before the date of the hearing. The 5/5/2011 161.173, 2000 Minnesota Statutes Page 2 of 2 notice shall state the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing, shall describe the proposed or actual general location • of the highway to be constructed or improved, and shallstate where the report may be inspected prior to the hearing by any interested person. The hearing shall be conducted by the commissioner or the commissioner ' s designee, and shall be transcribed and a record thereof mailed to each municipality or agency entitled to receive a copy of the report. All interested persons shall be permitted to present their views on the proposed highway construction or improvement . The hearing may be continued as often as necessary. Within 120 days after the hearing is completed, the governing body of each municipality or agency entitled to receive a copy of the report shall submit to the commissioner its approval or disapproval of the report. If all or any part of the report is disapproved, the municipality or agency shall state the reasons for such disapproval and suggested changes in the report . The commissioner shall, before preparing additional plans for the proposed highway construction or improvement, submit to the governing body of each municipality or agency disapproving the report, a statement accepting or rejecting any suggested changes and the reasons for • acceptance or rejection. HIST: 1969 c 312 s 3 ; 1980 c 509 s 52; 1984 c 654 art 3 s 52; 1986 c 444; 1994 c 628 art 3 s 10 111 161.174,2000 Minnesota Statutes Page 1 of 3 2000 Mnnesota Statu:his This is ia historical version statute section. Also view the most recent published version. 161.174 Submission of layout plans. commissioner shall submit to the governing body of each The is proposed to be constructed or municipality wherein a highway highway construction or improved, a proposed layout plan for the elevation, width the proposed location, together with improvement containing: improvement,and geometrics of the consttherefor or Said plan shall also a statement of the reasons limits; a tentative schedule approximate right-Of-way access points; contain: acquisition, if known; proposed es; location for t right-of-way roads; separation a tentative location frontage roads; separation structures aldl�nination fr landscaping, of utilities, when known; if known; and the estimated cost of the construction s chedule, construction or improvement. The commissioner shall submit more plan shall also be submitted to layout plan. Each such p ro • than one lay portion of the proposed highway p the metropolitan council if any p olitan construction or improvement is located cpyloft the lay layout plan shall area. In all areas of the state nty and municipal planning be sent to established regional, Couthe highway project. Not commissions in the area affected by after said plan has been public hearing on the less than 90 nor more than 120 days submitted, the commissioner shall hOrovement at such time and proposed highway construction or improvement place within any portion of the municipality wherein a p construction or improvement is located, as the commissioner held and The hearing shall be noticed, except that shall determine• to those conducted in the manner provided in section 161.17 only the commissioner shall mail notice editohreceave a copy municipalities and agencies en municip shall be transcribed and a record layout plan. The hearing ality or agency entitled thereof made available to each muVndithin 180 days after the to receive a copy of said plan. adopt a III lay is completed, the commissioner shall formally shall be heyring out plan. A copy of the layout plan as adopted submitted to each municipality or ag ency entitled to receive a the proposed plan, together with the reasons for 120 any daYs copy p presented at the hearing. change in n the plan as p 5/5/2011 161.174, 2000 Minnesota Statutes Page 2 of 3 after the receipt of the adopted layout plan, each such municipality or agency shall submit to the commissioner its approval or disapproval of the layout plan and the reasons disapproval, for pproval and proposed alternatives, which may include a recommendation of no highway. Such alternatives submitted by a municipality located within the metropolitan area shall, upon request of the municipality, be reviewed by the metropolitan council in order to determine whether such alternatives are likely to meet minimum federal requirements. The metropolitan council is authorized to provide whatever assistance it deems advisable to the submitting municipality in order to assist it in arriving at an alternative which meets minimum federal requirements . If said plan or any part thereof is not disapproved within such period, the commissioner ma y prepare final construction plans and specificationsforothed to highway construction or improvement consistent with the adopted layout plan, and may acquire the necessary right-of-way.ht-of-wa Y• If the layout plan or any part thereof is disapproved by any municipality or agency, and the commissioner determines to proceed with the plan without modifications, the commissioner shall proceed in the manner provided in section 161 . 175 . On determining to proceed with the plan with modifications, the • commissioner shall submit the modified layout plan to the municipalities and agencies entitled to receive the original layout plan in the manner described above, for approval or disapproval by each such municipality or agency within 60 days after receipt of the modified layout plan. If the modified layout plan or any part thereof is not disapproved municipality or agency within 60 days after its receipt, the commissioner may proceed to prepare final construction plans and specifications consistent with the modified layout plan, and may acquire the necessary right-of-way. If the modified plan is disapproved by any municipality and the commissioner determines to proceed with the plan without additional modification, the commissioner shall proceed in the manner provided in section 161 . 175 . If the layout plan is disapproved, either as originally submitted or as modified and the commissioner does not act pursuant to section 161. 175, within one year from the date of the completion of the hearing, any objecting municipality entitled to receive a copy of the layout plan by virtue of this section may invoke the appellate procedure • pursuant to section 161 . 175, in the same manner as the same 161.174, 2000 Minnesota Statutes Page 3 of 3 might be invoked by the commissioner. In the event the • appellate procedure is invoked by either the commissioner or the municipality, the commissioner shall hold a public hearing prior to the appointment of an appeal board. Such hearing shall be limited to the proposed alternative layout plans . HIST: 1969 c 312 s 4; 1984 c 654 art 3 s 53 ; 1986 c 444; 1994 c 628 art 3 s 11 • • • Al 1iaz,uPa,=Innn 5/5/2011 161.175, 2000 Minnesota Statutes Page 1 of 1 2000 Minnesota Statutes This is a historical version of this statute section. Also view the most recent published version. 161.175 Appeal board. Upon the request of the commissioner an appeal board shall be appointed. One of the members shall be selected by the governor and one by the governing body of the municipality involved. If more than one municipality is involved in the proposal the governing bodies of the municipalities involved shall appoint one member. This appointment shall be made by resolutions of the governing bodies of said municipalities which resolutions shall be submitted to the governor. When the governor has received resolutions from a majority of the municipalities involved designating the same person, said person shall be deemed appointed. If a majority of the municipalities which must include all disapproving municipalities have not agreed on the same person and submitted such resolutions to the • governor within 60 days after receipt of the commissioner' s request for an appeal board by the commissioner, then the chief justice of the supreme court shall appoint such member upon application by the commissioner upon five days ' notice to all municipalities involved. The two members so selected shall select a third member. If they cannot agree on a third member within 30 days after the last member was appointed, then the chief justice of the supreme court shall appoint the third member upon application of the commissioner after five days ' notice to the first two members . The three persons so selected and appointed shall serve as a highway appeal board and as such board they shall choose a chair from among their members and they shall have such duties and exercise such powers as are hereinafter provided. Members of the board shall not be employees or consultants of any counties, the state of Minnesota, or any of the municipalities involved in the proposal . HIST: 1969 c 312 s 5; 1986 c 444 • 1-.+-..,.Ilmc:rtv rncnenr I'M, CiAN del- tntPC/9i ri=1 61 175kveat=2000 5/5/2011 161.176, 2000 Minnesota Statutes Page 1 of 2 2000 Minnesota Statutes This is a historical version of this statute section. Also view the most recent published version. 161.176 Powers of appeal board. Subdivision 1 . Hearing. The highway appeal board shall, on notice to the commissioner and the affected municipalities, hold an appeal hearing on the entire highway layout plan as proposed by the commissioner, and alternates consistent with minimum federal requirements that are presented by the disapproving municipalities . The board shall take into consideration all aspects of the proposal including highway design, economic development, aesthetics, urban and rural planning, agriculture, transportation planning, and all other factors concerning highways . After considering all the evidence in the record, the appeal board shall issue an order approving the commissioner' s proposed highway layout plan or one of the alternatives . The appeal board shall be limited in its ruling • to any previously submitted layout plan of the commissioner or an alternate presented by the community in response to the commissioner. A copy of the order and a memorandum setting forth the reasons therefor shall be filed with the secretary of state, and shall be mailed to the commissioner and each municipality or agency entitled to receive notice of the layout hearing. If the cost is not substantially in excess of the programmed estimates for projects included in the commissioner ' s current construction program the commissioner shall construct the plan approved by the board in accordance with the original program schedule. Subd. 2 . Investigatory powers. The chair of the board, or any member thereof, shall have the power to subpoena witnesses; to administer oaths, and to compel the production of books, records, and other evidence. The rules of evidence and procedure for the trial of civil matters shall apply, but such rules may be modified by the board when it is deemed necessary. All evidence, including records and documents in the possession • of the board of which it desires to avail itself, shall be " offered and made a part of the record in the proceeding, and no other factual information or evidence shall be considered in the „,-,In4ofiif'0e/9;A=1 61 1 i6xrxrPa,=-111nn 5/5/2011 161.176,2000 Minnesota Statutes Page 2 of 2 determination of the matter. Documentary evidence may be • received in the form of copies or excerpts, or by incorporation by reference. The board shall cause a record of all proceedings before it to be made and filed with the chair of the board. Copies thereof shall be made available upon such terms and conditions as the board shall prescribe. Subd. 3 . Compensation; reimbursement of expenses. Members of the highway appeal board shall receive per diem compensation in the amount of $100 for the time spent in disposing of matters presented to the board. Board members shall be reimbursed for all reasonable expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties including all costs incurred in connection with any hearing. Subd. 4 . Expenses of parties. Each party to the appeal shall submit to the appeal board an itemized list of the expenses incurred in preparing its layout plan and presenting the appeal. The appeal board may determine what portion, if any, of a municipality' s expenses incurred for the services and disbursements of persons not regularly employed by the • municipality will be reimbursed from the trunk highway fund. HIST: 1969 c 312 s 6; 1986 c 444 411 161.177, 2000 Minnesota Statutes Page l of l 2000 Minnesota Statutes • This is a historical version of this statute section. Also view the most recent published version. 161.177 Construction plans and specifications. Not less than 120 days before the date specified by the commissioner for the receipt of construction bids for the construction or improvement htohthe governing any municipality, the commissioner shall submit of each municipality or agency entitled to receive a copy body o f as of the layout plan therefor under section 161.174, a copy complete a set of construction plans as is possible which will be issued to prospective bidders. All such plans shall be in accordance with the highway construction or improvement layout plan as approved under section 161.174, or section 161.176 . If the construction plans are not in accordance with the layout body of any municipality or plan as approved, the governing under section agency entitled to receive notice of the hearing under 161.174, within 60 days after the receipt appeal r btarn plans, may request the establishment of a highway board as provided in section 161.175, and hehepr procedures outlined in shall approve the plans following to that section, except that action e layout.and eChanges1intdesign changes from or additions to the capacity required to accommodate increased traffic forecasts shall not be considered deviations from the layout. A copy of highway construction or any plans prepared to affect any the highway appeal improvement plan previously approved by . If the board, shall also be sent to the crdancefwith therlayout plan construction plans are not in acco approved by the board under section 161.176, the board, within 60 days after the receipt of such plans, shall issue its order the commissioner to withhold any advertisement for directing with the construction bids until the plans are revised to comply plan approved by the board, or are approved by the board. If no municipality or agency requests the establishment of a highway appeal board, or the highway appeal board does not issue its order, as provided above, the commissioner may proceed to advertise for construction bids. HIST: 1969 c 312 s 7 ; 1986 c 444 5/5/2M 1 /');A-141 1'7'7Qr<TO�,-7nnn 161.162,2011 Minnesota Statutes Page 1 of 1 o s-4-. 2-00 2011 Minnesota Statutes • 161.162 DEFINITIONS. Subdivision 1. Applicability. The terms in sections 161.162 to 161.167 have the meanings Su given them in this section and section 160.02. lemental drawings Subd. 2. Final layout. (a) "Final layout" means gand exrplanatory information ormapon about the that show the location, character, dimensions, acce ssro proposed. "Final layout" includes, where 11 approximate right-of-way highway construction or improvement work being p p g applicable, traffic lanes, shoulders, trails, intersections,e line of the highway, lanes, access points and limits, existing ground line and proposed grade sidewalks, proposed design speed, noise walls, transit considerations,, traffic auxiliary volume,and interchange closures, inte locations, interchang�otypes,n ter drainage, location of municipal utilities, project turning movements, location of schedule and estimated cost, and the name of the project manager. oses of this (b) "Final layout" does not include a cost pasta documeng signed by the commissioner and the subdivision "cost participation agreement" means of a municipality that states the costs of a highway construction project that will governing y be paid by the municipality. Subd. 3. Final construction plan. "Final construction plan" means he set coat technical for bids.nk highway , drawings for the construction or improvement of a means the elected council of a municipality.actors Subd. 4. Governing body. Governing body • Subd. 5. Municipality. "Municipality" means a statutory or home rule charter city. History: 2001 c 191 s 3; 2002 c 364 s 3 • 11/17/2011 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=161.162 161.163, 2011 Minnesota Statutes Page 1 of 1 2011 Minnesota Statutes 161.163 HIGHWAY PROJECT REVIEW. Subdivision 1. Projects requiring review. Sections 161.162 • projects that alter access, increase or reduce highway traffic capacity, or require acouisi io permanent rights-of-way, q on of Subd. 2. Traffic safety measures. Nothing contained in sections 161.162 to 161.167 l the power of the commissioner to regulate traffic or install traffic-control devices or other sa f f is ety measures on trunk highways located within municipalities regardless of their impact on access or traffic capacity or on the need for additional right-of-way. Subd. 3. Construction program. Nothing contained in sections 161.162 to 161.167 limit s the commissioner's discretion to determine priority and programming of trunk highway ro'ects. History: 2001 c 191 s 4 p J • • https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=161.163 11/17/2011 • 161.164,2011 Minnesota Statutes Page 1 of 2 2o11 Minnesota Statutes • 161.164 FINAL LAYOUT APPROVAL PROCESS.re proceeding with the construction, highway system lying within any Subdivision r. Submission emnt of any route on the trunk hig layout and project any municipaliy,reconstruction,the improvement governing body a final lay The final layout ro osed design of the highway. municipality, the commissio route location,tand p P that the commissioner deems must be submitted the s part purpose, any supporting data th part of a report containing y PP supporting data must must ue to the governing as p The su is expected to the overning body in reviewing the final layout the governing e s yp helpful to g include a good faith cost estimate of all the costs in which participate. The final layout must be submitted before final decisions are reached so that meaningful early input can be obtained from the municipality.receiving a final layout from the body action. (a) Within 15 days layout from The Subd. 2. Governing Y public hearing on the final layout. governing body shall schedule a p commissioner, the g a final layout from the commissioner, conduct a public body shall, within 60 days of receiving present the e commissioner, final layout for the at which the Department of Transportation notice of the public hearing. public hearing body shall give at least 30 days' approve or project. The governing the governing body shall app (b) Within 90 days from the date of the public hearing, disapprove the final layout in writing, as follows: out in (1) If the governing body approves the final lay out or does not disapprove the final lay roved, the commissioner s in which case the final layout is deemed to be app • writing within 90 days, may continue the project development. capacity, or acquisition of plans contain changes in access, traffic caps the commissioner (2) If the final construction p layout approved by the governing body,from the final lay PP plans where changes were made to the permanent mght-of-way changes, in writing, within shall resubmit the portion of the final construction ove or disapprove the chant body. The governing body must app governing y• 60 days from the date the commissioner submits them. make disapproves the final layout, the commissioner may t, or refer the (3) If the governing body disapp proceed with the p j the municipality, decide not to p appointed by the modifications requested by appeal board shall consist of one member app agreed upon by final layout to an appeal board. The app governing body, and a third member ag appointed by the g governing body commissioner, one member aPP governing body. If the commissioner s and Court shall appoint a third both one commissioner and the g justice of the Sup cannot agree upon the third member,est of the commissioner to appoint the third member. member within 14 days of the request the appeal board Appeal board. Within 30 days after referral of the final layout, t present the board for Subd. 3. PP governing the appeal shall hold a hearing at which the commissioner and the g days after the hearing,later than 60 against approval of the final layout referredallot val with modifications, or recommend and or g approval, recommend pP board shall recommend app additional recommendations consistent report wit ping its disapproval of the final layout, making disapp It shall submit a written • federal requirements as it deems appropriate. overning body. findings and recommendations to the commissioner and the g 11/17/2011 1-.--/kinvw_revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id--161.164 161.History164, 201: 201 Minneso c ta 191 Sta s 5 tutes Page 2 of 2 01 • • • https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=161.164 11/17/2011 161.166,2011 Minnesota Statutes Page 1 of 1 2011 Minnesota Statutes • 161.166 COMMISSIONER ACTION; OTHER HIGHWAYS. Subdivision 1. Applicability. This section applies to trunk highways that are not interstate highways. Subd. 2. Action on approved final layout. If the appeal board recommends approval of the final layout or does not submit its findings or recommendations within 60 days of the hearing, in which case the the final layout is deemed approved, the commissioner may prepare substantially similar final construction plans and proceed with the project. If the final construction plans change access or traffic capacity or require additional acquisition of right-of-way from the final layout approved by the appeal board, the commissioner shall submit the portion of the final construction plan that shows the changes, to the governing body for its approval or disapproval under section 161.164, subdivision 2. Subd. 3. Action on final layout approved with changes. (a) If the appeal board approves the final layout with modifications, the commissioner may: (1) prepare final construction plans including the modifications, notify the governing body, and proceed with the project; (2) decide not to proceed with the project; or (3) prepare a new final layout and resubmit it to the governing body for approval or disapproval under section 161.164, subdivision 2. • (b) If the final construction plans contain changes in access or traffic capacity or require additional acquisition of permanent right-of-way from the final layout reviewed by the appeal board or the governing body, the commissioner shall resubmit the portion of the final construction plans that shows the changes, to the governing body for its approval or disapproval under section 161.164, subdivision 2. Subd. 4. Action on disapproved final layout. If the appeal board disapproves the final layout, the commissioner may: (1) decide not to proceed with the project; or (2) prepare a new final layout and submit it to the governing body for approval or disapproval under section 161.164, subdivision 2. Subd. 5. Final construction plans issued. The commissioner shall send a complete set of final construction plans to the municipality at least 45 days before the bid opening for informational purposes. History: 2001 c 191 s 7 111 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=161.166 11/17/2011 161.165, 2011 Minnesota Statutes Page 1 of 2 2011 Minnesota Statutes 161.165 COMMISSIONER ACTION; INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS. • Subdivision 1. Applicability. This section applies to interstate highways. Subd. 2. Action on approved final layout. (a) If the appeal board recommends approval of the final layout or does not submit its findings and recommendations within 60 days of the hearing, in which case the final layout is deemed approved, the commissioner may prepare substantially similar final construction plans and proceed with the project. (b) If the final construction plans change access, traffic capacity, or acquisition of permanent right-of-way from the final layout approved by the appeal board, the commissioner shall submit the portion of the final construction plans that shows the changes, to the governing body for its approval or disapproval under section 161.164, subdivision 2. Subd. 3. Action on final layout approved with changes. (a) If, within 60 days, the appeal board recommends approval of the final layout with modifications, the commissioner may: (1) prepare final construction plans with the recommended modifications, notify the governing body, and proceed with the project; (2) decide not to proceed with the project; or (3) prepare final construction plans substantially similar to the final layout referred to the appeal board, and proceed with the project. The commissioner shall, before proceeding with the project, file a written report with the governing body and the appeal board stating fully the • reasons for doing so. (b) If the final construction plans contain changes in access or traffic capacity or require additional acquisition of permanent right-of-way from the final layout reviewed by the appeal board or the governing body, the commissioner shall resubmit the portion of the final construction plans that shows the changes, to the governing body for its approval or disapproval under section 161.164, subdivision 2. Subd. 4. Action on disapproved final layout. (a) If, within 60 days, the appeal board recommends disapproval of the final layout, the commissioner may either: (1) decide not to proceed with the project; or (2) prepare final construction plans substantially similar to the final layout referred to the appeal board, notify the governing body and the appeal board, and proceed with the project. Before proceeding with the project, the commissioner shall file a written report with the governing body and the appeal board stating fully the reasons for doing so. (b) If the final construction plans contain changes in access or traffic capacity or require additional acquisition of permanent right-of-way from the final layout reviewed by the appeal board or the governing body, the commissioner shall resubmit the portion of the final construction plans that shows the changes, to the governing body for its approval or disapproval under section 161.164, subdivision 2. • https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=161.165 11/17/2011 161.165,2011 Minnesota Statutes Page 2 of 2 issued. The commissioner shall send a complete set of Subd. 5. Final construction plans days before the bid opening for final construction plans to the municipality at least 45 day • informational purposes. History: 2001 c 191 s 6 • • 11/17/2011 1,44,,e.//www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id--161.165 161.45,2011 Minnesota Statutes Page 1 of 1 2011 Minnesota Statutes • 161.45 UTILITY ON HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY; RELOCATION. Subdivision 1. Rules. Electric transmission, telephone, or telegraph lines; pole lines; community antenna television lines; railways; ditches; sewers; water, heat, or gas mains; gas and other pipelines; flumes; or other structures which, under the laws of this state or the ordinance of any city, may be constructed, placed, or maintained across or along any trunk highway, or the roadway thereof, by any person, persons, corporation, or any subdivision of the state, may be so maintained or hereafter constructed only in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed by the commissioner who shall have power to prescribe and enforce reasonable rules with reference to the placing and maintaining along, across, or in any such trunk highway of any of the utilities hereinbefore set forth. Nothing herein shall restrict the actions of public authorities in extraordinary emergencies nor restrict the power and authority of the commissioner of commerce as provided for in other provisions of law. Provided, however, that in the event any local subdivision of government has enacted ordinances relating to the method of installation or requiring underground installation of such community antenna television lines, the permit granted by the commissioner of transportation shall require compliance with such local ordinance. Subd. 2. Relocation of utility. Whenever the relocation of any utility facility is necessitated by the construction of a project on trunk highway routes other than those described in section 161.46, subdivision 2, the relocation work may be made a part of the state highway construction contract or let as a separate contract as provided by law if the owner or operator of the facility • requests the commissioner to act as its agent for the purpose of relocating the facilities and if the commissioner determines that such action is in the best interests of the state. Payment by the utility owner or operator to the state shall be in accordance with applicable statutes and the rules for utilities on trunk highways. Subd. 3. Utility interests when real property conveyed. In proceedings to vacate, transfer, turn back, or otherwise convey an interest in real property owned or controlled by the department, when the property is owned in fee by the state, the commissioner may specify that the conveyance of the department's interest does not affect a prior, existing utility easement in the property or use of the property granted to a utility under permit issued by the department. In addition, the commissioner may convey interests in real property, including an easement, subject to the right of a utility to enter upon the right-of-way to maintain, repair, replace, reconstruct, improve, remove, or otherwise attend to its equipment. Where the utility had no preexisting easement over the real • property, this subdivision does not prohibit a political subdivision, government agency, or private entity from negotiating or contracting with a utility with regard to the utility's easement or other interest in the property, but the utility shall continue to hold the interest in the property and the right of reasonable entry unless and until the utility agrees in writing to relinquish its interests. History: 1959 c 500 art 2 s 45; 1967 c 231 s 2; 1971 c 25 s 67; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 568 s 19; 1976 c 166 s 7; 1985 c 248 s 70; 1997 c 231 art 16 s 5; 1 Sp2001 c 4 art 6 s 22 • https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=161.45 11/17/2011 161.46, 2011 Minnesota Statutes Page 1 of 2 2011 Minnesota Statutes 161.46 REIMBURSEMENT OF UTILITY. • Subdivision 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this section the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them: (1) "Utility" means all publicly, privately, and cooperatively owned systems for supplying power, light, gas, telegraph, telephone, water, pipeline, or sewer service if such systems be authorized by law to use public highways for the location of its facilities. (2) "Cost of relocation" means the entire amount paid by such utility properly attributable to such relocation after deducting therefrom any increase in the value of the new facility and any salvage value derived from the old facility. Subd. 2. Relocation of facilities; reimbursement. Whenever the commissioner shall determine the relocation of any utility facility is necessitated by the construction of a project on the routes of federally aided state trunk highways, including urban extensions thereof, which routes are included within the National System of Interstate Highways, the owner or operator of such utility facility shall relocate the same in accordance with the order of the commissioner. After the completion of such relocation the cost thereof shall be ascertained and paid by the state out of trunk highway funds; provided, however, the amount to be paid by the state for such reimbursement shall not exceed the amount on which the federal government bases its reimbursement for said interstate system. Subd. 3. Lump-sum settlement. The commissioner may enter into agreements with a utility • for the relocation of utility facilities providing for the payment by the state of a lump slim based_ on the estimated cost of relocation when the lump sum so agreed upon does not exceed $100,000. Subd. 4. Acquisition of relocated facility for utility. When the project requires a utility to relinquish lands or interests in lands owned by the utility and the utility is unable to acquire lands or interests in lands necessary to enable it to relocate its facilities, or if the acquisition of the lands or interests in lands by the utility would result in undue delay thereby delaying the interstate highway project, the commissioner, by purchase, gift, or eminent domain proceedings, may acquire the lands or interests in lands necessary for the relocation if the commissioner deems that the acquisition would reduce the cost to the state of the project. The lands necessary for the relocation to be acquired by the commissioner must be designated in an agreement between the utility and the commissioner. The agreement must also provide that without cost to either party to the agreement, the utility will relinquish to the state its interests in the lands required for the interstate project in consideration of the conveyance by the state to the utility of the substitute lands designated in the agreement to be acquired by the state. The interest or estate acquired by the commissioner must be substantially similar to the interest or estate that the utility owned in the lands to be relinquished by it to the state. The commissioner may convey the lands or interests in lands to the utility. Subd. 5. Relocation work by state. The relocation work may be made a part of a state highway construction contract or let as a separate contract by the state under applicable federal laws, rules and regulations if the owner or operator of the utility facility requests the • commissioner to act as its agent for the purpose of relocating such facilities and if such action is https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=161.46 11/17/2011 161.46,2011 Minnesota Statutes Page 2 of 2 deemed to be in the best interest of the state. When relocation work is made a part of a state highway construction contract or when let as a separate contract by the state as authorized herein, • the cost of such relocation may be paid by the commissioner directly to the contractor out of the trunk highway fund without requiring the utility to first make payment for such relocation work and thereafter request reimbursement therefor; provided that, the agreement entered into between the state and the utility shall contain a stipulation that the utility shall reimburse the state for any costs of such relocation in which the federal government will not participate. History: 1959 c 500 art 2 s 46; 1963 c 57 s 1; 1965 c 14 s 1; 1967 c 231 s 1; 1973 c 42 s 1; 1981 c 209 s 6; 1983 c 143 s 1 1; 1996 c 455 art 3 s 13 • • https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=161.46 11/17/2011 8810.3100 Minnesota Rule Page 1 of 1 Minnesota Administrative Rules 1111 8810.3100 DEFINITIONS. Subpart 1.Interstate highways.Under this order "interstate highways" shall mean all trunk highways which are a part of the interstate system. Subp. 2.Noninterstate highways.Under this order "noninterstate highways" shall mean all trunk highways which are not a part of the interstate system. Subp. 3.Trunk highways.Under this order "trunk highways" shall mean all trunk highways including those which are a part of the interstate system. publicly, 4.Utility.Under this order "utility" shall mean and include all privately, p y, or cooperatively owned communication lines and facilities, any systems, lines, and facilities for the distribution and transmission of electrical energy, oil, gas, water, sewer, steam, and other r pipe lines, railways, ditches, flumes, or other structures which under the laws of this the ordinance of any village or city may be constructed, placed, or maintained across, along, or on trunk highway right-of-way. Dependent upon the meaning intended in the context, "utility" shall also mean the utility company, inclusive of any wholly owned subsidiary. Statutory Authority: MS s 161.45 Posted:January 20, 2005 II) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=8810.3100 11/17/2011 8810.3200 Minnesota Rule Page 1 of 1 Minnesota Administrative Rules 8810.3200 PURPOSE AND SCOPE. • Subpart 1.Purpose.The purpose of parts 8810.3100 to 8810.3600 is to carry out the mandate of the legislature and to effectuate that mandate as set forth in the Laws of Minnesota 1959, chapter 500, article II, section 45 (Minnesota Statutes, section 161.45) with reference to the placing, constructing, reconstructing, and maintaining of utilities across, along, upon, or under the right-of-way of trunk highways. Subp. 2.Scope.The scope of parts 8810.3100 to 8810.3600 is confined within the framework of and consistent with the Laws of Minnesota 1959, chapter 500, article II, section 45. Statutory Authority: MS s 161.45 Posted:January 20, 2005 • https://www.revisormuLgov/rules/?id=8810.3200 11/17/2011 8810.3300 Minnesota Rule Minnesota Administrative Rules 8810.3300 PERMITS. Page 1 of 3 Subpart 1.Construction.Except as otherwise permitted, utilit construction and relocation on a ri.ht-of-wa shall not be commenced until an as •lication for a .ermit for trunk hi_hw permit for construction sketch shall show the location of the proposed utility construction has been made and such r With reference to pertinent features such as the right-of- of the sketch shall be provided for way lines, curb lines, trunk highway center line, etc. ht of-way maps are available upon request each copy of such permit. Prints of trunk highway S Information Office, Department of Transportation Building, Saint Paul, from the Road Plans Inf Minnesota 55155. permit from the office of the assistant Subp. 2.Maintenance.The utility shall obtain se virce and maintenance operations on the engineer, maintenance, prior to performing performing service and interstate district e h permit prior to p opening and interstate highways and shall also obtain a work p p utility shall notify the e operations on the noninterstate highways when such instances eation u eq y re op maturenanc p thereof. In all other disturbing the surface of the right-of-way prior to performing service and maintenance office of the assistant district engineer, maintenance, p noninterstate highways which interfere with the normal o o he frunk highways operations the the noni k highways in those However, the company may perform service and maintenance operations including opening and disturbing the surface of the right-of-way without a work permit enc exists that is dangerous to the life or safety of the Pubmimthat which . instances where an emergency upon knowledge of such an emergency requires immediate repair. The utility up State Patrol Division. The utility shall take all necessary to the State Patrol Division to notify measures to public and shall cooperate fully measures to protect the traveling p ermit from the office of the assistant that end. The utility in such an even than than second working day thereafter when a work district engineer, maintenance, not later permit would ordinarily have been required but f for an t me t e st to of Minnesota, actin throu h Subp. 3.Orders to make improvements. its commissioner of trans•ortation, shall deem it necessa to make an a utilit a located n c trunk on all or an i art of the right-of-wa of the trunk hi. owner oft e utilit shall within 15 da s after highway right-of-wa , then and in such event, written notice from the commissioner of trans.ortation or an authorized a ent as to conform to change, vacate, or remove said utilit directed the trunk mm s Goner of trans�ortation. Such work g said trunk dhi one e without ct an c and as whatsoever b the written notice which ' out an cost whatsoever to the state of Minnesota exce it in said s otherwise srovided shall be done with any b law or a.reement and shall be completed within utility shall assume all liability and save the date shall be reasonable under the circumstances.d all claims of damage of any nature whatsoever state of Minnesota harmless from any occasioned by reason of not having removed said utility within the a Seasspecified in said e ootie. • Notwithstanding the provisions of parts 8810.3100 to 8810.3600, the municipality for the cost of the first relocation of a munici all owned utilit located within the 11/17/2011 t,.,..,.•/mnww.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=8810.3300 8810.3300 Minnesota Rule Page 2 of 3 limits of a munici.al street at the time that the street was taken over b y the state as a trunk hi hway, when such relocation is required by construction or reconstruction Subp. 4.Along interstate highways.Utilities along the interstate highways the trunk highway. outside the control-of-access lines except as outlined below. Where the o shall be located • coincide with the right-of-way lines, the utilities shall generally be located on p ivate property. lines Where the control-of-access lines and right-of-way lines do not coincide utilities progenty. be located in the area between them. All utilities shall be serviced and maintained lines may in general from the ramps, loops, and through traffic roadbeds. Utilities may be serviced from ro without access and roads other than another interstate highway which cross either over or under the frontage roads highway. At aerial crossings of an interstate highway, supporting under the intorstate interstate highway right-of-way if they are a minimum of 30 feet beyond the be located on through traffic roadbeds; however, in no event shall they be located in a median e shou less of all 80 feet or more. Manholes and other points of access to underground crossings unless its width is may be on the interstate highway right-of-way only when located outside the shoulders rough ed traffic roadbeds, loops, or ramps. The restrictions of this subpart shall not a of the through which service facilities required for operating the interstate highway. pply to utility lines There may be extreme cases where, under strictly controlled conditions, a utility permitted inside the control-of-access lines along an interstate highway. In each case may be be a showing that any other utility location is extremely difficult and unreasonably case there must utility consumer, that the installation on the right-of-way of the interstate highway costly to the adversely affect the design, construction, stability, traffic safety, or operation h of h interstate not highway and that the utility can be serviced without access from through traffic of the interstate or ramps. g ffic roadbeds, loops, • Subp. 5.Deposit, bond, or undertaking.The commissioner of transportation utility, or its contractor, to furnish a deposit in the form of a certified check, a may require the corporate undertaking in favor of the state of Minnesota, commissioner of transportation,surety bond or expense incurred by the state in the repairing of damage to any p on, for any right- of-way caused by work performed under a work permit or a permit for construction,y portion of the trunk highway right- out of the ordinary engineering supervision and inspection expense provided by tale. I t ose any instances wherein a deposit is required, the amount of the deposit shall be specified the state. In those provisions of the permit. If a check is furnished, any moneys remaining over and above iv such special expense shall be returned to the applicant. above such Subp. 6.Liability.Except for the negligent acts of the state, its agents, and utility shall assume all liability for, and save the state, its agents and employeesml employees, any and all claims for damages, actions, or causes of action arising out of the work tessfrom,o herein and the continuing uses by the utility, including but not limited to the , be done constructing, reconstructing, maintaining, and using of said utility under this alp 1 cgs' permit for construction, pp anon and Subp. 7.No easement. The work permit or permit for construction as issued d way imply an easement on private property. ors not in any Statutory Authority: MS s 161.45 History: 17 SR 1279 • https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=8810.3300 11/17/7n11 8810.3300 Minnesota Rule page 3 of 3 Posted:January 20, 2005 • • • = 11/17/2011 __ tiTh uov/rules/?id=8810.3300 8810.3400 Minnesota Rule Page 1 of l Minnesota Administrative Rules 8810.3400 STANDARDS FOR WORK CONDUCTED UNDER • Subpart 1. Trees, brush, and vegetation.At the time of PERMIT, times of subsequent maintenance, prior approval shall be obtained of the utility and at the authorized representative for the cutting and trimming of trees within m the district engineer or an way Wherever trees are cut the resulting stumps shall be removed unless trunk highway provided right-of- way. special provisions of the permit for construction. Any holes caused otherwise re oval shd In backfilled, the area leveled, and all materials associated therewith d by stump removal shall be highway right-of--way. The utility shall advise the district engineer or an of outside the trunk at least 48 hours in advance of its intent to start clearing and grubbing authorized operations that p operive supervision can be provided. g operations so that proper Burning or disking operations and/or the use of chemicals to control other vegetation is prohibited without prior approval from the assistant or kill trees, brush, and maintenance. t district engineer, Subp. 2. Waterways.All waterways and lines of drainage shall Subp. 3. Topsoil and sod.Wherever topsoil and sod are disturbed they shall be replaced and remain operative. maintained satisfactorily until the turf is established. Subp. 4.Existing utility facilities.The utility facility and installation s any existing utility facilities on the trunk highway right-of-way. hall not interfere with Subp. 5. Warning devices.When necessary, barricades, warnin devi • be provided by the utility during all phases of their const g ces, and naggers shall the trunk highway right-of-way. ruction and maintenance operations on Subp. 6.Restoration to original condition.Upon completion of an shall restore the trunk highway right-of-way to its original condition. The utility sh the utility the office of the assistant district engineer, maintenance, or project engineer utilf the shall then notify the work so that inspection can be made to determine its acceptability. lneer of the completion of Subp. 7. Conformity. The installations shall be made in conformity ty rules, and codes covering said installations. All installations shall be made ao applicable laws, a rules of governmental agencies for the protection of the public. de in conformity with Statutory Authority: MS s 161.45 History: 17 SR 1279 Posted:January 20, 2005 • https://www,revisor.mn.gov/rnles/?id=8810.3400 8810.3500 Minnesota Rule Page 1 of 1 • Minnesota Administrative Rules 8810.3500 AERIAL LINES. g There shall be only a sin le pole line on the trunk highway right-of-way of th either side the the center line thereof, unless otherwise authorized in the special provisions construction. Longitudinal installations on noninterstate trunk highways shall nor highway, poles shall be sho outer five feet feet of the right-of-way. At crossings de f r 1 nes of the through roadbeds unless right-of- placed at a minimum of 30 feet from the way widths are prohibitive to such location.Y Unless poles, clearl indicated on the permit for construction sketch, h of-way shall all approved p anchors, and anchor poles within the limlre of esentative prior to actual installation. by the district engineer or an authorized ces in which a utility is issued a permit or permits for construction conditioned upon the both h In those instances in a given area, such permit is co sides of the trunk highway right-of-way uentl providing joint use to other utilities upon reasonable terms mutually utility subseq Y P agreeable to the utilities. Statutory Authority: MS s 161.45 • History: 17 SR 1279 Posted:January 20, 2005 • 11/17/2011 enr_mn.Qov/rules/?id=8810.3500 8810.3600 Minnesota Rule Page 1 of 1 Minnesota Administrative Rules 8810.3600 UNDERGROUND LINES. • All crossings of the roadbeds of the trunk highways shall be made by boring inside pipe, or by jacking, unless this procedure is modified in the special g provisions a casing f e or permit for construction. The auger shall not lead the casing or carrier pipe by Ions of the Open trenching shall be restricted to the area from five feet beyond the p Y more than ght inch. way line except as modified in the special provisions of the permit for construction. the right-of- When pipes with bells or flanges are installed, the crossings of the roadbeds of shall be made by boring inside a conduit, as provided in the preceding ara ra trunk highway p jacking a g ph, of conduit of sufficient diameter to permit threading the carrier pipe through it. All voids caused by jacking or boring shall be filled by pressure grouting. The r shall consist of a sand-cement slurry of at least two sacks of cement per cubic g d a material minimum of water to assure satisfactory placement. yard and a The underground utilities shall be so installed as virtually to preclude an nece disturbing the roadbeds to perform maintenance operations. Y ssity for Underground installations shall be accomplished without damaging or destro in principal root structure of specimen trees. Y g the Statutory Authority: MS s 161.45 Posted:January 20, 2005 • S https://www.revisor.mn.gov/moles/?id=8810.3600 1 1/17bni i 174.52, 2011 Minnesota Statutes Page 1 of 2 2011 Minnesota Statutes 174.52 LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUND. Subdivision 1. Fund created. A local road improvement fund is created in the state treasury. The fund consists of money transferred to the fund through appropriation, gift, or grant. Subd. 2. Trunk highway corridor projects account. A trunk highway corridor projects account is established in the local road improvement fund. Money in the account is annually appropriated to the commissioner of transportation for expenditure as specified in this section. Money in the account must be used as grants or loans to statutory or home rule charter cities, towns, and counties to assist in paying the local share of trunk highway projects that have local costs that are directly or partially related to the trunk highway improvement and that are not funded or are only partially funded with other state and federal funds. The commissioner shall determine the amount of the local share of costs eligible for assistance from the account. Subd. 3. Advisory committee. (a) The commissioner shall establish an advisory committee consisting of five members, including: (1) one county commissioner; (2) one county engineer; (3) one city engineer; (4) one city council member or city administrator representing a city with a population over 5,000; and (5) one city council member or city administrator representing a city with a population under 5,000. The advisory committee shall provide recommendations to the commissioner regarding expenditures from the trunk highway corridor projects account. (b) Notwithstanding section 15.059, subdivision 5, the committee does not expire. Subd. 4. Local road account for routes of regional significance. A local road account for routes of regional significance is established in the local road improvement fund. Money in the account is annually appropriated to the commissioner of transportation for expenditure as specified in this section. Money in the account must be used as grants or loans to statutory or home rule charter cities, towns, and counties to assist in paying the costs of constructing or reconstructing city streets, county highways, or town roads with statewide or regional significance that have not been fully funded through other state, federal, or local funding sources. Subd. 4a. Rural road safety account; appropriation. (a) A rural road safety account is established in the local road improvement fund. Money in the account is annually appropriated to the commissioner of transportation for expenditure as specified in this subdivision. Money in the account must be used as grants to counties to assist in paying the costs of capital improvement projects on county state-aid highways that are intended primarily to reduce traffic crashes, deaths, injuries, and property damage. (b) The commissioner shall establish procedures for counties to apply for grants from the • rural road safety account and criteria to be used to select projects for funding. The commissioner shall establish these procedures and criteria in consultation with representatives appointed by the https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=174.52 11/17/2011 174.52,2011 Minnesota Statutes Page 2 of 2 Association of Minnesota Counties. Eligibility for project selection must be based on the ability of each proposed project to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes. ill(c) Money in the account must be allocated in each fiscal year as follows: (1) one-third of money in the account must be used for projects in the counties of Anoka, Chisago, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington; and (2) the remainder must be used for projects elsewhere in the state. Subd. 5. Grant procedures and criteria. The commissioner shall establish procedures for statutory or home rule charter cities, towns, and counties to apply for grants or loans from the fund and criteria to be used to select projects for funding. The commissioner shall establish these procedures and criteria in consultation with representatives appointed by the Association of Minnesota Counties, League of Minnesota Cities, Minnesota Association of Townships, and the appropriate state agency as needed. The criteria for determining project priority and the amount of a grant or loan must be based upon consideration of: (1) the availability of other state, federal, and local funds; (2) the regional significance of the route; (3) effectiveness of the proposed project in eliminating a transportation system deficiency; (4) the number of persons who will be positively impacted by the project; (5) the project's contribution to other local, regional, or state economic development or redevelopment efforts including livestock and other agricultural operations permitted after the • effective date of this section; and (6) ability of the local unit of government to adequately provide for the safe operation and maintenance of the facility upon project completion. Subd. 6. Administrative costs. A sum of 0.25 percent of the total amount in the fund, other than amounts deposited in the fund from the proceeds from the sale of state bonds, is available to be used for administrative costs incurred by the department in carrying out the provisions of this section. History: 2002 c 393 s 55; 2004 c 295 art 1 s 15; 2005 c 20 art 1 s 36; 1Sp2005 c 1 art 1 s 83 • /www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=174.52 11/17/2011 . , City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 February 2, 2010 .:- -• • P.E. Mn/DOT-Metro District Waters Edge Bldg 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 RE: Possible Funding for Utility Relocations—City Cost Share Dear Mr. Josephson, At our last discussion, an inquiry was made by the Department as to what would the City pay for some • aspects of the utility relocation. In considering this response we have reviewed a myriad of funding scenarios, however none present a clear and decisive path towards the City allocating significant dollars for utility relocations. The City will however likely be in a position to allocate some amount on this relocation project. However such amount cannot overwhelm the City, because as we have informed the Department, the City's ability to generate revenues is again significantly constrained by levy limits,constant reductions if not a total elimination of all state aids, as well as the fact City does not receive local Road Aids.Also, as you can understand the City earns little or no interest on its current funds. Generally speaking,the City is operating at a level, including its utility systems at its most basic"maintenance"levels. Despite the foregoing issues,the City staff is prepared to engage in a further exploration of the following: If the City was eligible to receive STATE ROAD AIDS, those amounts could possibly be in the $70,000 per year magnitude, and as this regional project is anticipated to be commenced in 2013, with a local-match request of$487,116 this would leave four years of STATE AID ALLOCATION (assuming the City would be hypothetically identified by MNDOT to be a State Aid City for the purposes of this project)to be applied to any required local funding, or approximately$280,000, plus any inflationary amounts. However, as the City is being asked to abandon significant public facilities that have considerable remaining usefuLlife,the City could be similarly credited for these facilities despite their locations, • as these locations were permitted by the Department for valid purposes. What this compensation to the City would be require additional calculations,but suffice it to say would likely exceed • $100,000+1-. Considering these points the City staff is prepared to consider and request the Council to actively plan for the allocation and fund raising over the next several years of up to$150,000 for this aspect of the project. This would be in addition to the City's betterments within this project for which the City would also have to engage its funding scenarios to address.The City however is in need of additional assistance to provide all funds within this planning. Specifically,the City would request that the Department to provide a loan for the aforementioned$1'50,000 at.0%.interestpayable.over 10 years,depending on when the project would go forward,as the City may not be able to issue a check in the amount of$150,000 for these improvements when otherwise due.And,the City would also like to Department to provide a s' ' lam "' i` nts"that would be needed to complete the project to its most logical, long-term solution. Lastly,regardless of the actual amounts calculated or funding mechanisms,the City will not be in a position to accept an unknown amount subject to bids,contractors and delays.Again,as mentioned,the City has almost no meaningful capacity to raise revenues for these projects given the restriction on its annual levy and the inability to assess properties under a statutory 429 mechanism(assessments). The City would likely need to plan its allocation for a number certain in the amount of funds,not tied a specific cost indicator,such as the Implicit Price Deflator.We cannot plan on fundraising effectively if the City is at risk for cestesealatiens in the hands of non-City controlled contractors or agencies. Now that this data has been provided you and ou have had a chance to review it,we would suggest that we • again sit .•wn in •ruary to continue our discussions. We ;► Opr-' at our patience in this response. gard:, City >d inistrator c: Les Abrahamson,City Council Member Mark Vierling,City Attorney Weekly Notes • I r , 0 -, i. i , .. ,ma.c City f Oak Park Heights ,phone 651 439-4439•Fax 651 439-0574 14168 Park Blvd. N•Box 2007•Oak Park Hei. ts,MN 55082 September 17th,2010 Mr.Adam Josephson Mn/DOT-Metro District Waters Edge Bldg Road B-2 1500 West County Roseville,MN 55113 RE: St. Croix River Crossing—Lookout Trail Dear Mr. Josephson: l • funding to 26th,2010 MNDOT did suggest a possibility of applying At our meeting held on July remaining dollars from that project being available support the repair of Lookout Trail aspects of City costs related to the Project. to the City for use on other aspe it is not an approach that is viable as it leaves a long-term While we appreciate the perspective, and appropriately fiscal liability to the City for the repair of Lookout Trail should it not be fully Pro reconstructed at the time of the St.Croix discus ect. Again,actually reducing the ssions and this approach only shifts costs to future Oak City's costs has been the goal of our Park Heights' taxpayers. Please let me know if you have any questions on this matter and we look forward to any other Bugg-:eons you may have. 4.:,.., ely cJlon City (a, •.•strator Cc: Councilmember Attorney so Mark Vierling,City Weekly Notes 410 Scott McBride,MNDOT �opo%t Esg%y Minnesota Department of Transportation 1 c. Metro District F.yoF,,,P,, 1500 West County Road B-2 • Roseville, MN 55113 September 9,2011 (sent by email only) Eric Johnson City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Re:5TH 36 Utility Relocations—City Estimate Report,dated August 17,2011 Dear Mr.Johnson: As requested,I have reviewed the city's report for estimated costs for sanitary and water main relocations due to the St Croix River Crossing project. Mn/DOT staff met with Chris Long on August 24th to discuss the report and review available utility information from state and city sources. Mn/DOT's cost estimates to date have been based on the study that the City and Mn/DOT did in 2006. My � . understanding of that effort is that the city, MnDOT,and a design consult had a series of meetings to define where city utilities were located,what city utilities would be in conflict with the project, how the city wanted to address those conflicts,defined desired betterments to city utilities and determine estimated costs. The 2006 cost estimates have since only been adjusted for inflation.Base+ estimates from the These study and inflated to 2013 have city utility costs at about$2.4M ($2M costs are shown in the estimated cost table dated 11-4-09 that was previously supplied to the city. The city's August 2011 relocation cost study reviewed two basic city utility alternatives. A) Relocate all utilities onto new city owned easement,and B) Relocate all utilities within the current state owned frontage road R/W. Estimated costs for city utility relocation,per the Bonestroo report are about$12M for Option A and$10M for Option B. The following comments are from a high level perspective,as requested,where I believe the estimate may be substantially inaccurate because of the assumptions made in the study. • Option A,moving all utilities to new city easement does not seem like a practical option to consider or implement. Ai IV An Equal Opportunity Employer 0 1 • Option B,assumes a 100% 41,411° /o utility relocation need,the impacts identified in 2006 were much less and as follows; o Sanitary sewer was 3310' not the 14,490'shown in the study or 23%. o Water main was 5795'not the 17,150'shown in study or 33%. • Both options assume a substantial amount of tunneling and directional boring to reduce impacts to existing surface features,this seems to be a reasonable assumption for Option A, but since the roads are being reconstructed with the project it seems that Option B would have much more open cut type work and thus be less costly. • The report utilizes a "two-dimensional"review to arrive at the concept costs; utilities are a "three- dimensional"issue. The 2006 study was more detailed in this regard and thus would have yielded more accurate results. HPP funds are currently available to offset 80%of eligible city utility costs. Eligible costs are for utilities directly impacted by a project. If the city chooses to relocate utilities that are not in conflict or impacted by the project they will likely be considered a betterment. Betterments are not eligible for federal fund reimbursement would therefore be a 100%city cost. The 2006 analysis identified areas where city utilities were in conflict with the project and included critical coordination between the city and Mn/DOT as to how to address those conflicts. The cost numbers generated by the 2006 study and then inflated should be closer to what the actual cost will be at the time of construction.The 2011 study seems more relevant to arriving at a ball park cost for Option A—moving all 1 utilities to new city easements. The Option B costs seem to be substantially over estimated because of the assumptions used in the study. During the detail design phase of the project,continued design and coordination will be needed with the city to determine what changes and improvements are needed and/or desired for the city's sanitary and water main utilities. Costs and eligibility issues will also be further refined. Thank you for allowing me to review the study and provide feedback. Sincerely, Adam Josephson Metro East Area Manager An Equal Opportunity Employer 4,-, 0 .i.,,,,, it ,„7,„, , . , „.„- , * ,, ,..,,,,,,...„, ft, ,,o, (-1;; P4 I. 4 , Y,.. ft ECKBERG ti LAMMERS ►�i • ATTORNEYS AT LAW Writer's Direct Dial Stillwater Office: (651)351-2118 1809 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Writer's Email (651)439-2878 mvierling @eckberglammers.com Fax(651)439-2923 October 7, 2011 Hudson Office: 430 Second Street Hudson, Wisconsin 54016 Mr. Adam Josephson (715)386-3733 East Area Manager—MnDOT Metropolitan District Fax(715)386-6456 Water's Edge Building 1500 West County Road B2 www.eckberglammers.com Roseville, MN 55113 Re: St. Croix River Crossing Project - Your Correspondence of September 9, 2011 Our File No.: 01501-17683 Dear Adam: Your correspondence of September 9, 2011 has been reviewed by the City staff of the City of Oak Park Heights. The reference within your correspondence, claiming that there was a study that was conducted, • and participated in by the City of Oak Park Heights and MnDOT in 2006 that rendered certain results, was questioned. The City of Oak Park Heights has reviewed its records in the matter, and finds no authorization was ever granted by City Council to engage in such a study, nor was there ever any expenditure by the City of Oak Park Heights relative to same. Further, upon review and contact with the City's then-Engineer, Mr. Dennis Postler, at that time from Bonestroo; Mr. Postler reports that there was raw data and plans that were shared between Bonestroo and SRF, who was MnDOT's consultant at that time, but there was never any collaborative study or joint preparation of findings and recommendations based on the raw data that was exchanged much less an agreement that the City would conclude that the utility infrastructure lying between Oakgreen Ave. and Osgood Ave. was to be left in place and would not be impacted. Given the nature of the statement within your correspondence of September 9, we are asking that you now go back to your records within the agency, and provide documentation with regard to the statement relative to the study and the City of Oak Park Heights' alleged participation with it and that identifies a conclusive City position agreeing that such utilities were to remain undisturbed. We look forward to receiving data from you on the issue at yo -. -s con - •-nce. You : very truly, • Mark . •g Oak Park Heights City Attorney ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS,WOLFF &I VIERLING, PLLP Family Law/Divorce • Business and Commercial Law • Criminal Law • Personal Injury/Wrongful Death Estate Planning/Probate • Real Estate • Land Use Law • Mediation • Municipal Law • Civil Litigation x.4.04 S°4 Minnesota Department of Transportation it Metro District %.OFTh ' 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 • November 14,2011 (Sent by email only) Eric Johnson City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Re:St Croix—Utility costs Dear Mr.Johnson: This is in reply to the city's October 7, 2011 letter concerning estimated city utility costs due to the St Croix River Crossing Project. The estimated utility costs currently being used were developed during the preliminary design utility meetings held with City of Oak Park Heights(including Bonestroo),City of Stillwater, Mn/DOT and • Mn/DOT's consultant(SRF Consulting Group)in 2005/06. The meetings were held to discuss what city utilities may be impacted by the project, how the city would want to adjust impacted utilities,to identify potential betterments desired by the city and to determine preliminary utility costs for the anticipated city utility work. The meeting agenda's and meeting summaries are attached for the following utility meetings; • March 31, 2005 • May 5, 2005 • July 21, 2005 • February 23, 2006 The city's input and design work by Mn/DOT's consultant resulted in the Preliminary Utility Cost Table (dated 7/31/06). Subsequent cost tables provided to the city have been adjusted for inflation only,the impacted utilities and quantities have not been updated since the 2006 estimate. The utility meetings held with the city were to develop a preliminary utility cost estimate such that a good faith cost estimate could be provided to the city identifying the city's estimated costs in the project. When the project moves into the detail design phase,design work and continuing coordination will be conducted • An Equal Opportunity Employer cri 4 f:il':'!*1)2WQ: Swith the city,the city's utility designers and Mn/DOT designers to reevaluate and further define all utilities that may be in conflict with, impacted by,or desired to be improved by the city. Detailed designs and cost estimates will be developed. The city infrastructure lying between Oakgreen and Osgood would also be re- evaluated,to determine if additional work is needed beyond what was identified from earlier discussions with the city. City utility costs figures will eventually be based on costs provided by the contractor in their bid tabulations. If you need further clarification please let me know. Sincerely, 4/A)///0'01 Adam Josephson Metro East Area Manager Attached Meeting summaries • 3/31/05 5/4/05 7/21/05 2/23/06 Cost Table,dated 7/31/06 • An Equal Opportunity Employer ,'*, '� . t � fi 5 i , 1 n �,,, wca' :� 3 i'.. • SRF No.0034686 0270 ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING UTILITY MEETING STILLWATER CITY HALL MARCH 31, 2005 AT 10:00 A.M. AGENDA I. INTRODUCTIONS II. REVIEW PROPOSED ROADWAY DESIGN • III. EXISTING UTILITIES • Any planned city utility projects within project limits IV. PROPOSED UTILITIES • City utility projects to be coordinated with this project V. NEXT STEPS • SRFCONSULTING GROUP , INC . Tr •Civil•Structural ••Environmental •Planning•Traffic• Landscape Architecture•Parking•Right of Way •SRF No. 0034686 RECORD OF MEETING TO Meeting Participants FROM: Brett Danner Environmental Planner DATE: April 4, 2005 SUBJECT: ST.CROIX RIVER CROSSING—UTILITIES MEETING MEETING MINUTES—MARCH 31,2005 A utilities meeting was held on March 31, 2005, at the Stillwater City Hall. The following were in attendance: Klayton Eckles, City of Stillwater Todd Clarkowski,Mn/DOT Shawn Sanders, City of Stillwater Dan Symanietz, SRF • Tim Moore, City of Stillwater Brett Danner, SRF Eric Johnson, City of Oak Park Heights Tom Ozzello, City of Oak Park Heights Dennis Postler, Bonestroo &Assoc. Karen Erickson,Bonestroo &Assoc. The following is a summary of this meeting: I• INTRODUCTIONS • The attendees introduced themselves. II. REVIEW OF TH 36 AT-GRADE DESIGN • No improvements at Norell/Washington. • 4-lane at-grade facility on trunk highway g y (TH) 36 (urban section on outside shoulders; rural section on inside shoulders). • TH 36 grade stays the same with at-grade intersection design. One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 111 Telephone(763)475-0010 •Fax(763)475-2429 •http://www.srfconsulting.com An Equal Opportunity Employer St. Croix River Crossing—Utilities Page 2 Meeting Minutes March 31,2005 1111 • 3-lane urban section on both north and sue frontage roads. intersections with north— • Pulled-back frontage roads at Oakgree and south frontage roads. • Relocated Beach Road overpass. • Reconstruction of TH 95 (southern terminus = near 0th Avenue North; terminus=just north of existing Lookout Trail intersection). lemental Final EIS. • Layout shown at today's meeting will be documented in the Supplemental EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES corridor. The following is a anietz reviewed the existing utilities along the TH 36 co Dan Sym reen/Greeley intersection. summary of the items discussed at the Oakg Utili =nakare en/Greeley • No major utility relocations until Osgood Avenue. • A water main located along the south frontage road at Oakgreen/Greeley would need to be relocated as it falls under a proposed pond. line that serves three businesses along Greeley Street intersection of o the south • • One aewer een/Greeley frontage road crosses through the TH 36/Oakgr frontage road. This crossing of TH 36 could be removed services if is these cities wish to coordinate with one another. Currently, Oak Park Heights which are located Stillwater. This line does not need to be relocated under this project. and at the northwest corner of • There will be some loss Greeled1Street with ersection existing accommodate the pulled-back the north frontage road/Greeley the south north frontage road. • Oak Park Heights requested clarification would be provided(e.g.,easement, etc.) of where the water main along frontage road would be relocated and what road. Th • Existing storm and sanitary sewer are located along the south the ontage The sewer will storm sewer will get rebuilt as needed with the project remain in its current location in the boulevard between tied to 36 between new grad frontage road. Some sanitary sewer casting will need to be add Trail S stem Alon Fronts a Roads The trail system along the frontage roads was discussed, including ownership and maintenance that the trails along the frontage roads will connect to the ownership of the of the trails. Todd Clarkowski noted the river. Todd noted that own p regional trail system and proposed loop trail along with the Oak Park Heights Memorandum of Understanding trail is being worked throw P� St. Croix River Crossing-Utilities Meeting Minutes March 31, 2005 Page 3 (MOU). If no one steps forward system and the trails. to claim ownership, Mn/DOT will maintain the frontage road Utilities-Os ood Avenue The following is a summary of the items discussed regarding utility intersection. ty i mpacts at the Osgood • Need for second water main crossing near Osgood Avenue. • Water main will be relocated with the project to the south frontage road. This main will continue east under TH 95 and then north parallel to the east side of T T water • Possible sanitary sewer improvements needed to address ro of 95. County Government Center. p blems at the Washington • Sanitary sewer line will be relocated to parallel the proposed Washington Government Center parking lot expansion, crossing TH 36 and tying into the existing system near the Tara Hidaway restaurant. g he existing Utilities-East of Beach Road and alon TH 95 The following is a summary of the items discussed regarding utility 95. • A water line is located ty impacts p is east of Beach Road • and along ated under TH 36 from Lookout Trail area to a pressure reducing station near 61st Street North (area of right of way purchased by Mn/DOT Preferred Alternative river crossing). for 1995 meeting. Dennis Postler to provide mapping so this line t illustrated be reflected on layouts e at layouts. can be reflected on the • Water is currently provided to Sunnyside Marina and Condominiums at one the Met Council Environmental Services ne location • Impacts. to MCES interceptor line is (MCES) treatment plant. described the Preferred Alternative bridge unknown at this time. Todd Clarkowski Mn/DOT anticipates knowing bridge pier locations by the end of this year. and that • Discussion of sewer line at Lookout Trail and TH 95 (Oak Park Heights). - There is an opportunity for Oak Park Heights to eliminate one sewer lift along Lookout Trail. station - There is a question of capacity if Zones 5 and 5A are combined by reconstructing some existing sewer- there may need to be two crossings under TH 95 (one to Zone 5 and one to serve Zone 5A). - If Zone 5 and Zone 5A are not combined, a second crossing ( o sewer crossing at TH 36 would need to be constructed and c saTH 95 totthg the e s treatment plant. - Large drops in the sewer line would be needed to get under TH 95 to chase as a grades • St. Croix River Crossing-Utilities Page 4 Meeting Minutes March 31, 2005 • - Additional information is needed regarding inverts to existing manholes behind the Sunnyside Marina and Condominiums. • Discussion of Stillwater sewer force main near the proposed reconstructed access to Sunnyside Marina and Condominiums. - A proposed stormwater pond is located between the relocated Sunnyside access and TH 95. - A Stillwater force main is located between this proposed pond and the access to Sunnyside; the line continues north through the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility property. - This force main was constructed in 1959; the exact location is unknown. It can only be located for about 600 feet from a lift station to the north. - This line would need to be located prior to construction. • Discussion of storm sewer plans at Oakgreen/Greeley. Klayton Eckles noted water quality issues/concerns related to Lily Lake. - Dry ponds are proposed at southeast quadrant of TH 36/Oakgreen/Greeley intersection (between Oakgreen and south frontage road) and west of Oakgreen along the west side of the south frontage road. - Additional mapping to be sent to Stillwater (Klayton Eckles) and Oak Park Heights (Dennis Postler) illustrating storm sewer lines/trunk lines/drainage areas • at Oakgreen/Greeley. IV. NEXT STEPS Costs for relocating utilities (including right of way) were estimated at $9.5 million, based on Concept F (Buttonhook Concept). Concept F is no longer being considered in conjunction with the river crossing. Costs associated with relocation of utilities east of Osgood Avenue will be estimated by Mn/DOT for the next meeting. Another utility meeting will be held in approximately one month. For this meeting,the layouts will be revised to reflect utilities east of Beach Road not shown at today's meeting. These meeting minutes were prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc., and represent SRF's understanding of the meeting discussion. If you have any comments or revisions, please contact Dan Symanietz or Brett Danner at 763-475-0010. H:\Projects\4686\EP\Meetings\StCroix-UtilitiesMtg-31 mar05.doc • St. Croix River rossing Project Utility eeting • Wednesday, 2005, 1:00— 3:00 Stillwater City Hall 216 North 4th Street, Stillwater, MN AGENDA I• INTRODUCTIONS II. REVIEW EXISTING UTILITIES III. PROPOSED UTILITIES • Review utility relocations with the project • Staging of utility relocations • Cost estimates for utility relocations • IV. NEXT STEPS H:\Projects\4686\H I-MU\DOCWgenda-utility-03may05.doc CONSULTING GROUP INC . • tcM1 'anning•Traffic• Landscape Architecture*Parking k • Right of Way SRF No. 0034686 SUMMARY OF MEETING TO: Meeting Participants FROM: Brett Danner Environmental Planner DATE: May 5, 2005 SUBJECT: ST.C O No ES CMAY 4,2—UTILITIES MEETING MEETING A utilities meeting was held on May 4, 2005, at the Stillwater City Hall. The following were in attendance: • Klayton Eckles,City of Stillwater Tom Ozzello, City of Oak Park Heights Dennis Postler,Bonestroo &Assoc. Todd Clarkowski,Mn/DOT Dan Symanietz, SRF Brett Danner, SRF The following is a summary of this meeting. 1. REVIEW OF EXISTING UTILITIES Dan Sy manietz reviewed the layout illustrating existing utilities in the project area. The following is a summary of items added to the layout since the last St. Croix utilities meeting (3/31/05). • A water main is located along Oakgreen Avenue that will be relocate of the d with f intage road reconstruction. A stormwater pond is proposed at the location • Most of the utility relocation work is at the Osgood Avenue/TH 36 intersection and to the east at the proposed TH 36/95 interchange. • An existing pressure reducing station is located at thlocation Peller of )the A stormwater pond, interchange (approximate location—61st Street and station d, at the northwest quadrant of the interchange,will require this pressure reducing to • be relocated. Minneapolis,MN 55447-4443 One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Telephone(763)475-0010 •Fax(763)475-2429 •htt p'//wwva srfconsultin .com An Equal Opportunity Employer St. Croix River Crossing—Utilities Meeting Notes May 4,2005 Page 2 • • An existing pressure reducing station is located along TH 36 just to the east of the Washington County Government Center expansion (60th Street and Panama Avenue). This pressure reducing station will have to be considered with any new water main crossing of TH 36. • The Stillwater forcemain located along TH 95 and the proposed new Sunnyside entrance will not be impacted by the grading for the proposed Sunnyside pond or the construction of the loop trail system. II. REVIEW OF PROPOSED UTILITIES AND STAGING Proposed Utilities—Water Main • The water main at Oakgreen Avenue/Greeley Street will be relocated with frontage road construction. The water main will be relocated between the walk along the west side of Oakgreen Avenue and the proposed stormwater pond. • The pressure reducing station should be located at the water main "T" that feeds the Sunnyside Marina and Condominiums. Tom Ozzello provided Dan Symanietz a conceptual drawing of the potential configuration of this new pressure reducing station. • A new water main crossing of TH 36 will be constructed east of the Washington County Government Center near Paris Avenue. The existing pressure reducing station at Panama III Avenue will remain in place and a new pressure reducing station would be constructed with the water main crossing at Paris Avenue. Proposed Utilities—Sanitary Sewer • An existing sanitary sewer line through the TH 36/95 interchange area will be relocated and flow down through the interchange to the existing Met Council sewer crossing of existing TH 95. • The new sanitary sewer line that runs through the TH 36/95 interchange could be removed from Mn/DOT right of way if the existing sewer line that runs along Lookout Trail were replaced to flow down to the existing lift station. The lift station could be replaced with a new gravity crossing of TH 95 near Sunnyside. • The Bayport interceptor at the south end of project construction on TH 95 will be relocated with the project. Discussions regarding this relocation with Met Council Environmental Services are ongoing. Storm Sewer and Pondin at Greele Street • Stillwater has a program in place to improve water quality at Lily Lake (Lily Lake Improvement Project). • Stillwater would like to see more stormwater treatment upstream to benefit Lily Lake. • St. Croix River Crossing—Utilities Page 3 Meeting Notes May 4,2005 •• Oakgreen Avenue will be required en.to A new development in Oak ond near Heights newlo constructed townhomes along Oakgreen.a new NURP p newly -constructed and would drain to the wetland area along the south frontage road an d T new P Oakgreen Avenue,then across TH 36 to Oasis Pond. impacted to a great • Pond capacity at the north frontage road/Greeley o�� on frontage road will require some fill in the extent by the project. Relocation of the n of the east side of the pond,but will also allow for some expasiionn the pond to a copy south. • Both Oak Park Heights and Stillwater are interested preliminary drainage report. Construction Stain es from the Supplemental Final EIS for the Preferred Alternative were distributed to Staging figures the group. • Staging illustrated in the figures assumes full f ll first Cg of beep ej construction of the new • Most utility relocations will occur in roadways. • III. REVIEW OF UTILITY RELOCATION COST ESTIMATES ietz distributed a preliminary cost estimate for utility relocations based on the Dan Syman improvements illustrated in the layout shown at today's meeting. approximately • Utility relocation costs for Oak Park Heights lift ustation near Lookou der Trail and TH 95. $1.7 million,including costs to eliminate for storm sewer relocations. • Cost estimate does not include anything IV. NEXT STEPS Oak Park Heights will review elimination of the existing lift station near Lookout rail and TH 95 (costs of eliminating lift station versus costs of new sanitary sewer Heights has informed Mn/DOT regarding the fate of the station, the layout will be updated to reflect any sanitary sewer changes/relocations in this area. was raised by Klayton Eckles regarding city cost participation with storm Todd A relocation question w grading changes rns. Todd relocation costs, particularly if project-related gr g Clarkowski clarified that this would be addressed through the Memorandum of Agreement cities. S St. Croix River Crossing—Utilities Meeting Notes May 4, 2005 Page 4 ll/ There will be no additional utility coordination meetings through the remainder of the environmental documentation phase of the project. Any necessary correspondence will be handled through email,phone, etc. Additional utility coordination meetings will occur the final design stage of the project. during These notes were prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc., and represent SRF's understanding of the meeting discussion. If you have any comments or revisions, please contact Dan Symanietz or Brett Danner at 7.63-475-0010. contact Dan H:\Projects\4686\EP\Meetings\StCroix-UtilitiesMtg-04may05.doc • • St. Croix River Crossing Project • Utility Meeting Wednesday, July 21, 2005, 1:00 —3:00 Stillwater City Hall 216 North 4th Street, Stillwater, MN AGENDA I. INTRODUCTIONS II. REVIEW EXISTING UTILITIES • Water • Sanitary Sewer • Storm Sewer • III. PROPOSED UTILITIES • Storm Sewer IV. NEXT STEPS H:\Projects\4686\EP\Meetings\Utilities\Agenda-utility-20ju105.doc • laiCONSULTING GROUP , INC . Transportation•Civil•Structural •Environmental•Planning•Traffic• Landscape Architecture•Parking•Right of Way • SRF No. 0034686 SUMMARY OF MEETING TO: Meeting Participants FROM: Dan Symanietz Engineering Specialist DATE: July 22, 2005 SUBJECT: ST.CROIX RIVER CROSSING—UTILITIES MEETING MEETING NOTES—JULY 21,2005 A Utilities meeting was held on July 21, 2005, at the Stillwater City Hall. The following were in attendance: l , Eric Klayton Johnson Eck es, City City of Oak of Park Stillwater Heights Tom Ozzello, City of Oak Park Heights III Karen Erickson,Bonestroo &Associates Todd Clarkowski, Mn/DOT Rusty Mereng, Mn/DOT Dan Symanietz, SRF David Filipiak, SRF Walter Eshenaur, SRF The following is a summary of this meeting. I. INTRODUCTIONS • The group introduced themselves. • After the introductions, Todd Clarkowski stated the purpose of today's meeting and previous meetings was to come up with a preliminary concept/design for the utilities affected by the project. II. REVIEW OF EXISTING UTILITIES • Dan Symanietz stated that all previous comments to existing utilities had been incorporated into the layout. One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150,Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 • Telephone(763)475-0010 •Fax(763)475-2429 •http://www.srfconsulting.com An Equal Opportunity Employer ■ St. Croix River Crossing—Utilities Page 2 Meeting Notes July 21,2005 • III. PROPOSED UTILITIES • A discussion was held regarding the location of the proposed sanitary sewer and water main along TH 95. The City of Oak Park Heights would like to see the sewer and water main placed along lookout trail—referred to as option 2 on the preliminary estimate at the e meeting. Tom Ozzello said only two reducing station were needed de ch this lex.pDan sand near the village area around Beach road and one behind the Sunny P the cost would be about $200,000 more then the original option because of reconstructing Lookout Trail in the areas of the utility relocation. • The sanitary sewer and water main will be relocated to Lookout Trail, the and cost estimate revised to reflect this change. • David Filipiak then gave an overview of the drainage maps shown at the meeting. The maps are a communication tool to show drainage areas, show existing drainage systems, proposed systems and connections to the existing system where needed, ponding locations and elevations, and utility conflicts and issues. • Walter Eshenaur then started a more detailed discussion of the drainage areas affected by the project(e.g.,the Lilly Lake Area and the St. Croix River Area): 410 Lilly Lake Area Discussion — Oasis Pond exists today, and there will be some grading impacts to this pond. — Existing drainage patterns are maintained. e rates will — Two new ponds will treat water before discharging Oasis pond Pond;However, will remain the same or be less then they are today out of Oasis probably increase. — Eric Johnson stated that the Middle St. Croix Watershed District has review authority for the City of Oak Park Heights, and that the existing pond near the Greeley intersection is owned by the condominium association. — There is also a new development in Erickson of south frontage EricksoOna to get intersection. We should contact Todd the plans. — Klayton Eckles from the City of Stillwater had concerns about water quality and quantity going to Lilly Lake. The City has done a lot of improvements to their drainage system to improve water quality in Lilly Lake. — Klayton would like more treatment for the Lilly Lake area(e.g.,look at using available areas to create more treatment i.e.,lot next to Bakers Square). - Klayton would like to see SRF computations for the Lilly Lake drainage area. • — Eric Johnson wanted to know if the project meets the MS 4 requirements. St. Croix River Crossing—Utilities Meeting Notes July 21, 2005 Page 3 • St. Croix River Discussion — The existing storm system under the south frontage road will remain and take the existing off site runoff and the south half of the proposed frontage road. This system will empty into Perro Creek as it does today. Water from the Government Center that also flows to Perro Creek will also go there in the future. Water from the TH 36 runoff will be treated in the project area, and this water will be diverted from the Perro Creek area which will help with the current flooding problems. — A treatment train ponding scenario will treat the remainder of the water in the TH95 /TH36 interchange area. — TH 36 is rural typical section in the median area and urban on the outside west of Osgood Avenue. The typical section is urban in the median area and rural on the outside east of Osgood Avenue. The drainage will be carried in these outside ditches from Osgood Avenue to the interchange ponds. — The city of Oak Park Heights expressed concerns about the future county project (Pickett Ave.) and the storm water going to the Pickett Ponds. — The flow directions of two pipes shown on the drainage area map were noted. These will be corrected. — The City of Oak Park Heights expressed concerns about the wetland impacts created by • Riverside ponds and by the Pickett Ponds. Todd said the ponding and wetland impacts were discussed early on in the EIS process and the City was represented at those meetings. Another meeting will be held in approximately one month. The layouts will be revised to reflect utility changes discussed at today's meeting. The cost estimate will be updated per these changes; quantities and costs will also be added for the storm sewer impacts to both Cities. The cities would like to get copies of the corrected storm sewer maps and utility layout These notes were prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc., and represent SRF's understanding of the meeting discussion. If you have any comments or revisions, please contact Dan Symanietz at 763-475-0010. DS/bls SRF..Yo1311 11Projects146861EPIMeetingsl Utilities/StCroix-UtilitiesMtg072105.doc • St. Croix River Crossing Project • Utility Meeting Thursday, February 23, 2006, 1:00 —3:00 Oak Park Heights City Hall 14 168 Oak Park Boulevard North, Oak Park Heights, MN AGENDA INTRODUCTIONS II. PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT • Storm Sewer Design III. REVIEW PROPOSED UTILITY LAYOUT AND POTENTIAL UTILITY RELOCATION COSTS • • Sanitary Sewer • Watermain • Storm Sewer IV. NEXT STEPS • Additional Utility Verification and Coordination HAProjects\4686\EP\Meetings\Utilities\Agenda-StCroixUtility-23feb06.doc • CONSULT ING Transportation•Civil•Structural •Environmental• G R O U P � � N C @EI tal Planning•Trafbc•Landsca e • 1111 p Architecture•Parking•Right of Wap SRF No. 0034686 SUMMARY OF MEETING TO: Meeting Participants anticipants FROM: Dan Symanietz Engineering Specialist DATE: February 24, 2006 SUBJECT: ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING—UTILITIES COORDINA MEETING NOTES—February 23, 2006 TION MEETING A Utilities meeting was held on February 23, 2006, at the Oa k Park Heights City Hall. The following were in attendance: Shawn Sanders, City of Stillwater Eric Johnson, City of Oak Park Heights Tom Ozzello, City of Oak Park Heights Dennis Postler, Bonestroo &Associates Todd Clarkowski, Mn/DOT III Rusty Nereng,Mn/DOT Adam Josephson,Mn/DOT Monty Hamri, Mn/DOT Mel Horak, City of Bayport Wayne Sandberg, Washington County Dan Symanietz,.SRF David Filipiak, SRF The following is a summary of this meeting. I. INTRODUCTIONS • After introductions, Todd Clarkowski gave a brief overview of primary focus at those meetings was the watermain and sanita paw r utility gave a brief description of the project roadway and trail network meetings. The today's meeting would be the drainage (storm and t ry sewer indicated t Todd also discussed at this ng meeting is found dr in the r Fork indicated that in information focus of sewer) system. Much of the cities and county received a few weeks ago. p preliminary drainage report, which the cities and One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150,Minnea olis Telephone(763)475-0010 •Fax (763)475-2429 • p 'MN 55447-4443 III h��'vww srfconsultin com An Equal Opportunity Employer St. Croix River Crossing—Utilities Page 2 Meeting Notes February 23, 2006 • II. PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT • David Fillipiak provided an overview of the drainage report. • David Fillipiak explained the overall drainage patterns using the drainage treatment map contained in the preliminary drainage report. Most of the patterns are similar to what has been presented in past meetings, with the exception of the addition of two infiltration basins at the Greeley Ave. intersection. • David also stated that there is a map in the drainage report showing drainage issues, connection points to existing systems and possible utility conflicts. • Rusty Nereng responded to a question from Oak Park Heights wondering if project will meet the MS4 requirements. Rusty stated that the preliminary water resource design should meet the requirements as currently written. • Wayne Sandberg wanted to know if the Pickett Ponds take into account the future Pickett Ave. project. RESPONSE: The pond volume shown in the Preliminary Drainage Report includes the existing conditions for this area but not the additional pavement. Final pond sizing. We believe North Picket Porid could be expanded to account for the new roadway during final design. • Mel Horak list four project related concerns from the city of Bayport 1. Make sure ponds address aesthetic needs. Todd indicated that the Aesthetic Design • Guide has addressed ponds aesthetics. 2. The city would like a trail connection from Pickett Ave. to the existing trail near the bank. 3. The city would like a Traffic Signal in town,possible at 211d Ave. S. and T.H. 95 4. Truck access on to T.H. 95 from Anderson Windows. III. REVIEW OF PROPOSED UTILITY LAYOUT-COST ESTIMATE • The group reviewed the proposed utility (sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer) layouts. • Eric Johnson inquired about pond maintenance, and stated that the City of Oak Park Heights would not maintain ponds. • Todd handed out the preliminary cost estimate breakdown dated 2-23-06. Additional information from previous estimates now includes a cost breakdown based on the water quality treatment occurring at the ponds. Since the project is maintaining existing drainage patterns the cities would not have to share in the storm sewer costs for conveyance (piping), just the cost of providing water quality treatment (ponds and outlets). Costs shown are still preliminary. Continued refinement of costs and cost participation will occur during final design. • Eric stated the city does not have $2.3 million to pay for utility costs. • Adam Josephson said that federal HPP dollars are available for city utility relocations and • that Mn/DOT was still looking into ways of providing the local match for utility work but that defining the magnitude of the potential costs is the first step in that process. St. Croix River Crossing—Utilities Page 3 Meeting Notes February 23, 2006 • • Adam would like the cities to review there exist utilities and ownership location along with the municipal boundaries to make sure they are accurate. • Todd would also like the cities to get back to Rusty Nereg at Mn/DOT if they think water is being treated in the existing condition and that those areas determined to have adequate treatment will be removed from the contributing area for the storm treatment costs. • Mel noted that there was an existing storm sewer near the old prison that pipes water from the prison to the river. IV. NEXT STEPS • Supplemental Final EIS would be out some time in March and would be describing the preferred alternative package there by completing the preliminary design. • Mn/DOT will continue to meet with the cities during the final design phase of the project and will continue to respond to comments but there probably will not be another preliminary design utility meeting. • Eric wanted to know what will happen to the existing frontage roads until the project begins. Adam said they would need to be looked at and some maintenance could be preformed on • the roads. • In addition to the cities Mn/DOT will meet with Met Council to continue to coordinate their utility relocation work The cities and county were given a copy of the existing and proposed utilities color coded by ownership. Also a layout showing the municipal boundaries over the project area and a layout showing the existing and proposed utilities color coded by type of utility, shown at the last meeting held in July 2005 . The group was also given a copy of the proposed utility relocation cost estimate. These notes were prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc., and represent SRF's understanding of the meeting discussion. If you have any comments or revisions, please contact Dan Symanietz at 763-475-0010. DS/bls • SRF.Vol31H.•IProjects146861EPIMeetingsl UtilitieslStCroix-UtilitiesMtg-23feb06.doc • ' F.. _ > m Q gm f m 9 9 6 JF c 9°o R o ' . 9 _ a§ n P 0 1 1 1 1 1 :VU A m m a I _. N 2 -P,g _ ti U m°N m 13 . e: 2Ziali MAMA', 1.1!MIA m R N @� � o . c 0 WI im , mz° c 1 3 - s " a Z CD 4 a a R i N 111111111111 111111111111111111111111111 a N 111111111111 111111111111111111111111111 1 1 111111111111 111111111111111111111111111100 5, ' !Ilium!! I mimmilimollimill l °' N rg r , ___,T,,,,_, rr, , 1_,, ,, ,_, ,i, ,, , i ,, , , , , , , , 1. . , ,.a 1 1 , 1 t r L'- 1 I i I 1- ! I � T r i I v I r ' � i' I I I I I, i - N 1 I I I f II r i I J� � i . _ I� I I � L � � ,,:i.l I Vi I I o :. �� I i , � - p 1 I I� 1 I i sn I 1 1 ' -I m II 1 I, ' 3 I I I ?"a N 111 I I f Pr it 1 K Iininniii 11111111111111 11 111111 11111 m 0I 3 111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1T I . °I s II li 9 111111111111111 0I w Hilinnili IiiniIiiiiimnmnhiuii0F 0 1 i 111111111111 111111111111111111111111111 1 ' 111111111111 JIHIHIHIIIIIIHIIIIIIOI 0 °3 1y I I! MIIlI IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � g1 I 11111111111 uunuuuiunuunnnnnI ,A goy 111111111111 IIlIiIlIIiIlIIIIiIIII I . i 1 x1,11111111111 111111111111111111111111111 A _. 11111111111 , 111111111111111111111111111 1 i D v N N A W N-,O e m 2 2 2 SI- M �OODDgyy n 9,,t. rj •:. a s 1p O 0 y 03-1-1-(-11mm m uND Wsaa O, O n»w w x rio0a3xx 3 I r m 9 =',.,2 0 0 e.a,m: X ? «<D D O O a .. 8 O v Y O m 0 0. N,-Frmmmzz d d m m 1,J mzm,y OI Z m �. m m � f/1 < D-1 mmmOO = c C < 3 ,n r O IQ' N fi n1 3AAA?N > z$ , ESZxlrl m -+ w ��3m )C (P�� m 1 O OmAO'yl 0 N °n�zzmii �(2 O w = yam y, m H rnO:,07,- 71 ° o°�e z sz 1, N 1 w O.t,' m; E IC g 0 y x x x 1 Z ° r m y F y -l00mU70 0 -Zi .a., g ; o Z ID Omm s?--1+n1 n n A 3 z zoo D .- D m A rCi mmwvm =ln0m n+73 ua m v m $ g I mmoo 08' 0... O z ■ �i w 00 . . N.-0, _ -Oi I m cn°0mw°oD-1+ Ill --1 n n x a 0°o 1 r NZ1 M 711 Z III IIIIIIIIIIIH R 1 11 z !,., i I 1� �NNN III I 11111111111111 0 x x 1 D O v le A a'-�o(7 Nj°oo0om 11' 'I �O $y Ip 07J mw ND 13 III 1 Inp3Ox '0 Z go ma' 031 zir�m 1 a 41 7 Ca m-' A 1i III } II I�y I, - 3 3 O a. o G irr 1 II f 'r Co x "O m „; O 0� -I C '`� .x' �I ' I r xl 73 0 0<_ < I 1`"'ll _I -0 W I 11 I n 0 m m D °m I 1 '. I I', 1 N m m O I I�, , f 1 f0 m o 0 E 1 1 11 , �. - , I Ca zp rn 1 1 fA y m ^r 1 V 1 1 y ii Lii` r: t 0, .0 111111111111.. w 111 1 II M co m 1E111 1 , ; d s<m i ' si m O s 1 IllIllIllIlli 11I w �,I o E III III 1I::II:0:11111:I fill i s ::1;! I g gOSI l' g i 1” 1i ! G _ 1111111!1111! Ito