HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.24.05 Work Session Packet
City of Farmington
325 Oak: Street
Farmington, MN 55024
Mission Statement
Through teamwork and cooperation,
the City of Farmington provides quality
services that preserve our proud past and
foster a promisingfUture.
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
MARCH 24, 2005
5:30 P.M.
CENTRAL MAINTENANCE FACILITY
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVE AGENDA
3. TRANSIT ISSUE
4. SCHOOL SITE UPDATE
5. PROJECT UPDATES
6. ADJOURN
PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
.:ouncil workshops are conducted as an informal work session, all discussions shall be considered fact-finding. hypothetical and UlWfficial critical thin/dng lB%e1'Cises,
which do not reflect an official public position.
Council work session outcomes should not be construed by the attending public and/or reporting media as the articulation of a formal City policy position. Only
official Council action normally taken at a regularly scheduled Council meeting should be considered as a formal expression of the City's position on any given matter.
Meetin2 Notes Concernin2 Transit Issues
Meeting #1
With the proposed permit parking system in the Apple Valley Transit Station near
Carmike Cinema, the transit issue has come to a forefront for the City of Farmington. A
meeting was held on Monday, March 7th from 8:30 to 10:00 am in the State Office
Building in St. Paul. Present were State Senators/Representatives from the Lakeville,
Apple Valley and Farmington districts, Met Council, MVTA, Suburban Transit
Association, Dakota County, and the Cites of Apple Valley, Lakeville, and Farmington
(Councilmember Fogarty and City Administrator Urbia). Items discussed were:
(I) Regional challenges faced by current transit taxing district
The transit taxing district has not changed in 32 years with the exception of Victoria,
which was taken out. The 2001 property tax reform transferred transit funding from the
property tax to a state general fund appropriation. The appropriation has not kept pace
with need, and we are seeing large shortfalls by Met Council to provide existing service.
The current state statute on the transit taxing district requires any new communities that
would join to have 100% of their funding (for pay 2005 would be $202,000 including
$25,000 from fiscal disparities for Farmington, per Tom Poul) go towards the Met
Council's existing debt service, with no service options for Farmington. With this option,
a decision would be necessary by May 1 st. Additionally, current state law would not
allow for a new community to opt out of Metro Transit to allow another service provider
such as MVT A or other options.
The ST A and its member communities would like to see legislation introduced during
this session that would allow flexibility for new communities with an incremental
approach to the tax dollars to be shared in some fashion between operation and existing
debt service and opt-out provisions for other service providers. Met Council indicated it
would prefer a regional solution, as there is a new reality of growing communities outside
the taxing district created 32 years ago.
(II) Out of Area Park and Ride Users (Information from Metropolitan Council License
Plate Study)
Handout attached. For the south metro park and rides, of 3,534 total spaces used,
Farmington residents accounted for 143 spaces (which represents 5% of total and
numerically we are the third highest city, behind Lakeville and Andover).
(III) Discussion on Potential Solutions (both long and short term) to Apple Valley's Park
and Ride Problem
(1) structure agreement with Met Council and Lakeville for transit service
- Lakeville indicated they are currently completing a survey of residents
that will be completed in May and then the council would analyze next
steps from the results.
(2) Add 2nd level to Apple Valley Park and Ride - there is federal grant dollars
(understood 2008 is next cycle) however there is completion metro-wide.
(3) Renegotiate space from Watson's/otherparking lot in area - Watson's has
been contacted numerous times and has no further interest.
Apple Valley indicated that putting aside the permit issue, parking is an issue now and
has been an issue due to lack of space. Many cars are currently parking in the Carmike
Theater parking lot, and one day they could barrier the lot and there will be parking in
many residential neighborhoods. Apple Valley has opened up adjacent on-street parking
that was previously not allowed. A V staff has indicated that by mid-April they have to
report to the A VEDA a permit implementation program, as part of that, the
implementation may not occur for another 30 to 60 days.
(IV) Next steps. At this meeting, the group decided it would monitor legislation, discuss
status of City's Plan (Apple Valley and Lakeville) and meet again.
Farmington representatives gathered from this meeting that there was past dealings
between Apple Valley and Lakeville on this taxing district issue. The City of Farmington
was more spectator than participant. From this meeting, council and the City
Administrator discussed exploring separately from the above group our options, as we are
concerned about our residents who use the service. As a result, additional steps were
taken. The first step was to place this item on the agenda for the March 24t\ 5:30 p.m.
Council Workshop. Meanwhile, additional meetings and research have been conducted.
Meeting #2
Councilmember Christy Jo Fogarty attended an Apple Valley Economic Development
Authority meeting on Thursday, March 10th during the day to indicate to Apple Valley
our concern for our residents who use this park and ride and that Farmington will explore
options and possibilities concerning transit. This made an extremely favorable impression
on Apple Valley and we hope will allow the city time to explore these options providing
our residents time to utilize the park and ride.
Meeting #3
City Administrator Urbia recommended to council to meet with a subgroup of
representatives from the first meeting prior to the workshop to have the options more
defined to report to council and the public. This meeting was held on Friday, March 18,
2005, 2:30 p.m. at the Farmington City Hall. Participants included for the City of
Farmington: Mayor Kevan Soderberg, Councilmember Christy Jo Fogarty, and City
Administrator David Urbia, for the Suburban Transit Association (STA): Tom Poul,
Attorney, Messerli & Kramer P.A., for Dakota County: Greg Konat, Director/Physical
Development Division, for the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVT A): Beverly
Miller, Executive Director and for the City of Apple Valley, Tom LaWell, City
Administrator.
Mr. Poul indicated that this would be a difficult time to join the taxing district with the
current law and a $60 million Metro Transit shortfall for any ability to see operational
service. Legislation should be ready from house research the week of March 21 5t for
potential introduction that would have a phase-in provision and allowance towards
operation in a new community (such as Farmington). An example of the phase-in could
be over four years at 25% increments. Urbia asked if safeguards could be placed in the
phase-in to not reach 100% if the Metro Transit shortfall continues and service is not at a
defined level. Poul indicated this certainly could be brought up, further he indicated that a
city could either await the legislation or work out our own agreement with Met Council.
There was then discussion on capital monies. Everyone in the metro taxing district
competes for capital procurement with the federal match. Urbia inquired about Figure 5,
page 18 of the Dakota County Transit System Plan, Phase 1 (preliminary Results), as
there are two park and rides identified in Farmington. Poul indicated that to receiving
grant monies for this a community would have to be in the taxing district and the Park
and Rides would have to be in the Met Council plans. Poul again stressed that to join the
taxing district as it is now, there would not be an ability to opt out, there would need to be
special legislation for that. There is also a philosophical debate concerning expanding
transit service, that Met Council does not necessarily wish to do so community by
community, but instead a regional approach. Urbia inquired since Lakeville and Andover
had higher numbers of use, and we know where Lakeville is at in this process, where is
Andover at. Poul was not aware. Councilmember Fogarty asked if the legislation does not
pass, could Farmington legally negotiate with MVT A. Poul will look into this. Miller
indicated MVTA would be agreeable to this approach.
After this discussion, the next action steps were discussed. Farmington can proceed in a
dual track. Track one is to monitor the legislation. Track two is to begin researching the
direct contract option. Miller indicated that for this direct contract option, the city will
need to decide which level of service it wishes. The Farmington representatives all
indicated that this would be hard to determine without reaching out to those 143
identified users ofthe park and ride and any other users as well. Urbia will request the
information from the license plat survey so that a survey could be mailed to these
individuals. Additionally, the survey can be on our website and publicized in other means
to reach out to as many other affected users as well. MVTA will send out survey
information to Farmington to assist the city with creating a survey, so we ask the right
questions. Poul will research the Victoria contract with SW Metro Transit, as they were
once in the taxing district and how can they now be an opt out city with contract. LaW ell
will send literature to Urbia that can be distributed to our residents on other nearby park
and ride options. LaW ell indicated that April! oth will be the permit implementation plan
presentation to the A VEDA, this plan could show another date to start permitting.
Respectfully submitted, David Urbia, City Administrator
-- ~-~----- -----~--
<, .
eJ'tvin Citie~s~Metr'opolit(ll'1. rl,..ea
M.VTA
.!.~
Corridor Park & Rides (Usage/Capacity)
o Burnsville Transit Station (1200/1260)
Q Apple Valley Transit Station (633/568)
4) Eagan Transit Station (273/610)
o Blackhawk (247/361)
<121~ Palomino Hills (208/312)
. Savage Park & Ride (68/182)
o Heart of the City (4/350)
MVTA Bus Routes
Other Park & Rides
o Active
Q Future New or Expansion
. ~ 'c "'
~,
Survey Date: October 2004
tJ 0.5 1 2 Miles N ~AMetropolit_ C"uncil
. W+E ...dAI
s G Metro Transit
~
l
~
----------
--~~-
I =1 ,\
. i ~
;;7 \~-.i .'~
~ . i \\~ I
. .;;
. I. f.
r. -
. .
.
.........Ol4M \! .
\ !
i
I
[ t \
1 ! \
~.
ij"-. I ~ /
["~-I.
r
I,
~')~!!'i
.." J.
.,
. .
· f ~., ~I~\ .
~~J~ \
., ~,a
~
-~r I'
'f
.;;;;oU;1:I
"
II'
J
it
~1;
.,
,"~ ~
~} A ~~
..
~
i
oS
*
~
l.
~
\~ ..
. -
"'.' ~ T .-:.;;,.1.
I L,.\:
......:-i.
J .... " ~
r~~---'""~---'
-"-- - ._-, '--r-.T'~
1 .._
~ ,. "I:' [I .....
.. ;. .-:,"':... .~..=-\:' 'F
. ...rr ~ "
l._ il
~ ......,"l.~
L- '---"--.. ~l--.--:
~"
~!,_ :~J
r ".
t". ..
-".
.~. f...~'
(~. : 3 J..:-A'V
. . ...~._.
~. . :' II .,
~ "i
.
.....
. "
. I,
. .t~.
"
r"
...
...
r
!
>
iI
!!'
j
.
'f
I'
i-l
~ ~ ...
\. .. .
f
. .
.
1
~.--, ....
(---
:'
r, .,' 0
!"~,
r I . ' .,r-
, ~
~'... <k".-.-
h,,,.y i " "",
r
f.
I
r-:':Ol-~
1",,-'1 ~
.~
-....
.
.
'lJ1
p\'.
r
. .
~ .
;."-l~
t .
'! "~-~l
t .....lI.....JG
~-
~
....."'.....,..
. . ii
56,000
~I
RAINBOW
LlJ
TARGET
GREATLAND
f89,229
, URLlNGTON
COAT FACTOR !
I
87,437
oq
1:1 1(/&
o
=:=J)I
1
==:J.! ~
==n
o
-~
Dakota County
Transit System Plan
Phase I
Preliminary Results
1
~ JD(2N,V"\ ~v\)l\ d/
_ __ -;;&L'
..--' /C!2s
~.e:..(?
)
__ /~ Mf1t?krf
Lv I UVl/ll'~ I
~~~
~ I( c-zrYl1 ~
Needs Analysis
2
I. Needs Analysis
The Transit System Plan is intended to establish a long-range (20 year) Dakota County
Transit Vision by examining countywide transit needs in a comprehensive manner,
accounting for both short- and long-term needs with a fiscal context as well as within a
policy context.
System Inventory
The first step of the plan development process was to develop a needs analysis. The needs
analysis included a system inventory to provide a quick scan of existing conditions in terms
of transit service types, coverage, frequency, and supporting infrastructure in the county.
Key findings and conclusions of the inventory include:
. Distinctly different transit service areas exist within the county.
. Only the northern portion of the county is served by fixed-route services (Metro
Transit).
. Only the northern portion of the county has ADA-eligible transit service.
. DARTS provides most of the service in the southern part of the county.
. MVT A is the largest transit provider.
. Almost 80% of county residents live within reasonable driving distance (2.5 miles) of
a park-and-ride or park-and-pool.
. Dakota County has 12 spaces (transit center, park-and-ride, park-and-pool for every
1,000 residents. The metro average is 8/1,000. (Total of 4,100 spacing operating at
63% capacity).
County Trends
The needs analysis also included a look at county trends. Key findings based on current and
projected demographics include:
. The county population is anticipated to increase by 150,000 people by 2030, to
increase the county population to over a half million people.
. Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, and Lakeville are anticipated
to be the most populous county cities and should account for 60% of the county's
population.
. Households will grow more rapidly than overall population (+77,000 new
households).
. Employment is anticipated to grow by 31 % by 2030 adding 66,000 jobs to the current
base of 148,000.
o % of all county jobs will be located in Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan,
Hastings, Lakeville, and West St. Paul.
. County senior population is expected to increase by 200% by 2030.
o Currently = 30,000 > 65 yrs
o 2030 = 86,000 > 65 yrs
. In 2030, residential density will continue to be generally low in the county.
County Travel Trends
. There are 1.2 million trips generated or destined for Dakota County each day.
. 1.8 million by 2030 = 50% increase.
3
· 77% of all traffic either entering or exiting the County is using corridors connecting
to the north.
· Travel to and from Scott County accounts for 13% of all traffic entering or exiting the
county.
. Work trips to Dakota County
o 59% of all work trips made in the county began and ended in the county
(2000).
o Largest producer of work trips to the county include Hennepin County (11 %
of all work trips) and Ramsey County (9%)
o The number of work trips bound for Dakota County originating from the
remaining border counties increased by more than 50% (1990-2000),
(combined 21 % of all work trips).
. Work trips from Dakota County
o 41 % of all work trips leave for Hennepin and Ramsey counties.
o Scott County work trip destination had the largest percentage increase,
although still small in numbers (2% total, 100% increase).
4
Results of City Surveys
5
Results of City Surveys
In addition to analyzing travel trend data and other demographic and socioeconomic
indicators, Dakota County undertook a process seeking input from communities and from
transit providers operating in the County. This consisted of a survey distributed to city
administrators, public works directors, and community development directors, in addition to
meetings with city staff. The following handouts are a summary of input received. What we
found out was:
· Summary of Questions I through 3
i. Transit is critical to ensuring the general mobility of all your residents in
the future; especially for seniors, special needs, and low income
populations. These users needs are currently being met somewhat
effectively.
11. Transit is not as critical to the general population. You felt that the needs
of the general population, commuters, and youth have not been effectively
met.
· Summary of Question 4a through 4c
i. The transit service that would best serve the needs of your businesses and
residents is one that:
1. Takes people outside, as well as inside, the county
11. A service providing movement outside the county is one that:
1. Takes people directly to downtown Minneapolis, followed by St.
Paul and the 494 strip
111. A service providing movement inside the county is one that:
1. Takes people to EaganlBurnsville/ Apple Valley
· Summary of Question 4d and Question 5
i. These are individual comments only that you may go through on your
own.
. Summary of Question 6
i. You told us it was somewhat appropriate for the county to assist local
jurisdictions in developing transit-oriented development plans and also to
increase the countywide levy as a set-a-side for transit infrastructure
construction.
6
Community Survey Responses
Question 1. How critical is transit when it comes to ensuring the general mobility
I
of all your residents?
Not
Critical
Somewhat
Critical
Very
Critical
Question 2. How critical is transit when it comes to ensuring the general mobility
of all your residents in the future?
Somewhat
Critical
I
Not
Critical
Very
Critical
Question 3a. How well are user needs currently being met?
Not
I
I
Met
I
Met
Commuters, General Low Income
Population and Youth
Seniors and Special
Needs Populations
Question 3b. How critical is it to such a user's quality of life to have transit
services available to them?
I I I I
Not Somewhat Very
Critical Critical Critical
General
Population Commuter Low Income ,eniors and Special
Needs Populations
7
Community Survey Responses
Question 4a. A transit service that would best serve the needs of my city's businesses and
residents would.. .
(NOTE: -V indicates number rif surory responses)
Take people to areas outside
Dakota County.
Take people to areas inside
Dakota County
~~~~~
~~~~~
Pick up people living outside
Dakota County and bring them
to areas inside my city.
~~
Question 4b. A transit service that would best serve the needs of my city's businesses and
residents to travel OUTSIDE Dakota County would.....
Take people as direcdy
as possible to
downtown Minneapolis
~~~~~~
~ ake people as
direcdy as possible to
the 1-494 Strip.
~~~
Take people as
direcdy as possible to
downtown St. Paul.
Take people as
direcdy as possible to
some other location.
~~~~
Question 4c. A transit service that would best serve the needs of my city's businesses and
residents to travel INSIDE Dakota County would...
Circulate Take people Take people to Take people to Take people to Take people
within to Eagan/ Rosemount/ Mendota Lakeville/ as directly as
my city Bumsville/ Inver Grove Heights Heights/ F annington possible to
Apple Valley. West St. Paul. some other
location.
~~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~
.
8
Community Survey Responses
Question 4d. Please provide any additional comments you' have
regarding the optimal transit service that would serve the needs of your
city's businesses and residents.
City of Hastings
. Hastings runs a dial-a-ride service to meet local city needs for senior
citizens, disabled, and low-income residents.
. Commuter transit services are needed to provide links to St. Paul and
western Dakota County as well as providing opportunities for park-and-
ride for western. Wisconsin and southeast Dakota County and Goodhue
County commuters.
. Park-and-ride facilities would aid local businesses and help constrain
congestion non area highways.
. Highest needs are for transit to destinations (many in Dakota County)
outside city limits.
City of Lakeville
. Door-to-door service for seniors.
City of Apple Valley
. Expansion of frequency and capacity of present commuter services.
City of Eagan
. Eagan has high needs for commuting and reverse commuting to and from
the central cities and the MOA and 46th Street transit hubs.
. To the extent resources permit, there is always a need to expand the scope
and frequency of services, including circulator services within the
community and within the broader northern and western Dakota County
community.
. Because of the size of business parks, transit needs to circulate within
them, as well as to them.
City of Rosemount
. As the community grows, we need to have transit options expanded.
Commuters are using neighboring communities' park-and-rides.
. Also want regular-route service to specific destinations. City is willing to
work with County to gather public input as service changes.
9
Community Survey Responses
Question 5. Please describe any plans you have to intensify and support
transit services and intermodal connections within your city. Examples
include transit-oriented development, plans to construct transit hubs,
bicycle/pedestrian trails, or any other plans you feel may be relevant to
future transit in Dakota County.
City of Hastings
. Downtown redevelopment to support a transit station for the Red Rock Corridor
commuter rail- or other commuter transit service.
. Future trail connections to Mississippi River trail system.
City of Lakeville
. Planning for eventual commuter service within Lakeville.
. Increased service for special needs and seniors.
City of Apple Valley
. Transit-ori~nted development in 64-acre Central Village area, a new
urbanist-style development.
. New transit station/lot at Dakota County Road 31 and 157th Street.
City of Eagan
. Cedar Grove transit-oriented development (TOD). (Looking for other TOD
opportunities. )
. Cedar Grove Transit Station
. Future Cliff Road BRT Station.
. Always expanding and linking city / county bicycle/pedestrian trails.
. Strong interest among Northeast Eagan businesses for reverse commute
to business parks.
City of Inver Grove Heights
. Connections to: Dakota County Mississippi River regional trail system,
Inver Hills Community College.
City of Rosemount
. We are in the process of redeveloping downtown. This will result in a more
compact, transit-oriented development pattern. The goal is to facilitate
pedestrian use and attract transit to the downtown.
10
Community Survey Responses
Question 6. Please tell us how appropriate you believe it would be for
Dakota County to take on the following roles in providing for future transit
considerations.
a. Developing policy guidance that would assist local jurisdictions in
developing transit-oriented development plans.
Not
Appropriate
Somewhat
Appropriate
Very
Appropriate
b. Making transit considerations part of the County's local plat review
developing transit-oriented development plans.
Not
Appropriate
Somewhat
Appropriate
Very
Appropriate
c. Increasing the Countywide transit levy, using the funds as a set-
aside for infrastructure construction.
Not Somewhat I
Appropriate Appropriate
Very
Appropriate
d. Increasing the Countywide transit levy, using the funds as set aside
for transit service provision by transit providers operating within
the county.
Not
Appropriate
Somewhat
Appropriate
Very
Appropriate
e. Taking responsibility for operating a County-oriented (service
focused on internal Dakota County travel) transit service.
Not
Appropriate
I
Somewhat
Appropriate
Very
Appropriate
11
Gap Analysis
"
12
III. Gap Analysis
In addition to analyzing travel trend data and other demographic and socioeconomic
indicators, Dakota County undertook a process seeking input from communities and
from transit providers operating in the County. This consisted of a survey distributed
to city administrators, public works directors, and community development directors,
in addition to meetings with city staff. The following handouts are a summary of
input received. What we found out was:
Figure 1: 2030 Population Density
. Only a few areas have residential densities over five persons per acre. Areas
with densities of five or fewer persons per acre are not very good candidates
for local fixed-route transit. Areas that are include West St. Paul, South St.
Paul, Burnsville, Apple Valley, and Hastings. Portions of Eagan, Lakeville,
Farmington, and Rosemount also have these future densities.
Figure 2: Transit Expansion Areas
. The current and future regional transit service area, taken from the Met
Council's TPP, is shown. Some expansion of the service area in the future is
identified for portions of Lakeville, Farmington, and Hastings. The
mechanism for affecting this expansion will likely lie in some legislative
action.
Figure 3: Dakota County Transit Market Areas
. Market areas are determined by land use patterns to determine the most
appropriate type of transit service.
. Market Area IV = fixed-route service not considered feasible.
. Market Area ill = having peak-only express service, other needs through dial-
a-ride.
. Market Area II = all-day express service with fixed-route local services
feasible.
Figure 4: Future Transit Corridors and Infrastructure
. Shows the passenger and support facility needs identified in regional plans.
Figure 5: Local Transit Gap
. Specific needs for types of services beyond what is identified in regional
plans.
o Commuter circulator service in Eagan, Apple Valley, and Burnsville.
o Reverse commute service to Eagan
o Increased service frequency for express service, especially in the p.m.
o Potential for a Scott County connector based on growing travel trends.
o Potential for an 1-494 connector based on shopping and work-trips in
the corridor.
o Additional transit corridors are identified in the county's and local
plans for future study or identified transit need (maroon lines).
13
It=: \-J:~~~~:~~rtk1~~~, d . ",~~~161~~! ~-"'l~' r~'t i [I T.
...." F -.~'''''4''~:-;'''.'' ,-- -.... ."Js.i .ev: t"i'iLI_ ~. Legend
11'" -b l~~:~'f~{I4=lg;;.:t~JL. "!::: -I. "1rTt . lakeElmo"
~~~.i~~(i1ii~'~" }n!:i~ir:~ff~;:'~ :Z~~ P.OPI~:::;:~.;n2~\0
=; .:.:~!1t. '~ . 't-q~~ ~~~I'~l~ ' 1,V 1I -- - 9 - 14 ~
iH- b~~~P .~~ ZSi~'i~~~:1~t\t.~. ~ Tt ~.,,' '~-?, - ~ 1; or mo~e
'~it.~I~" '::I ~ls , .~ 'J - ~l ~ ~\\':;: ~";'j L-.:-..-l1
Tl i!:Wf;;;.li' ./11llP ~ ) r L r ,j -\l",'P"'r' 1''-. '- L.,. - . We'
1.~!~"c;J Ji.,~~" ......// ~ r'1 ;'--r.1f~\ V~POF""'::::: ~"Odbfll' !
~...;I:.~-~u "~'I - 'f- ~...., I~, \ I ,
_I~l~g;y~'=ff"j / ..~~: ,~~"";iE'Jf~l.. ~~f~--= ::rr'~~\-----
~~nepO,~ I V\~.~ :~' ~ili J......... ~:.;,'h "-r, .: '-- i...,i
~J,;' ,ii' ,/, f I" C? \ 1'-' l'm~i "T - DQrlmc'~ f\ 'p- 1-',
, \ " '~' .l ~ --cw ~ ') \ I '61~" 1,:...-1J ~
;J.r.......; 'd)' '!{- -I""/~~)G >YCk/,J'is' rid '\ZJ waS~hin~ton( CIlfTOrI
,. I I ,'<"..... __ I J - 1 ,., \ I- ·
,.r':.r-- _.~~'[)i '"/; --~,~ '\.'-' (.s',-_; " 1- 1! J
1~,1 ~~'j 'iI ~ >1iti~'-._- --'--;iJ_. _.:!t-:= j".f.oITage Grove ,~", ~ -- /
1] n,?~I, l:-~!&&J ~ J"\;}' ~ ~"""'--";I..._i,~?;j~--'\ c~~~ L7 r---'--'
~,4'l WI~,o!) Na!le'( , l'---f- - ,~ NII~, i'--~V fl'\iO.... l j, --\.
I i h"'IU_tf! I i-ll I I H-'- \ Rosel ollnr" ~ j h--j ."...~;:,!._~.~:esC(i [ Oak
) ~> "l. ,j ::A~ I "V...- lil;:+-:=--:" I Glove
~g.i I _-' , T H'- ,_ i ~~);.WW1""'4.. i '..;.."
___'_'_'",__" ,..,..;: Ii i r. . I -;'-ll U r. - nTh.".
~,/\ y r I I \....he ~~ . J r(;\:7 [.-1.1- '
h~ '<51 ~) ~ f;;f l-~~' ",",Jr' --=~~' 1-- I f-- -;tl/- ::- ~ ~ 'fl'
~I"~ l ./ r-~'-r-'! ,1 a~ota- - '~lrsl~~~~
~._ '. L1!" ')5 ! ~~! .u'P~l P _ )Je'~',:.:;:i: I I -,,' Ra rw .
.. I I~; ,.JM.- .:., ~ - 11:, .-- J 1/ p ~ ~ .
~ue.. j'f...Wii.'-( "il,'(';l'Ifl/I!J1 f,t t... "'~ \' / 7 ,.,..-:. - ~~.. 5
, I --...... . ' . ";.-- - 7: J , / -~,- ,
'">-1 1 . I t~ 1 r IT' ~ r I I.
l~t~~'~=:~:'IU_I.-I-'-'-'-~~" 'r' J~~/~ ~f'6N\ ,'~ ~_~J_
r _. \. I I. - '~ II H~ 1/01 - f." "p
-"~'F -:f ......1-.1 ~ l ;ef-r I 'f '/ Lu,;'l.." ',-- -I
~ ,.. I :r ~ v1t7 -r;py- __ C;l~"~~krwlt.__~t.L,~ \., ~gIJih~P::'~~3~1;
_~.fA 11\',or....../'" ~. 1N l\ -'.!=-~I
'l~~hl!;kor ,~ . 'T- '-+_ .~. WI .o:-~- .J. '3 r,.r--. .__..Ll ~~. " ,
:T} -,_ '<;:r- --" 1"T:i-T'-l e" -7jJ t \ --"1-- r II ,.
..._~<<l.!1 """ J I I 1 '1- . ~ T / i I . J - ,I ,('--'
JIL-l I! ,11 t.l T / ' . - ~,I ~-l)-)D
r I if I J---' \J I J /tal olpn tyP .... J V --(-....( ~
;"'I: '1:1 .'. 1 --,. -.-~-1k 'J I r ,/ J ' ~'.1 ~ I
t _ 1rrr-~?-" _ _ \" ~C f/ 9J'I~>.I-fi;,';;:~ "\ ~! 'J.~-~,;- '-,..... "2'1 ( i,.,,--
;.r l1eLil5le'f ~f5:1 ~'"'"J:"'" !" ,,~~tc'~ It J..\'-"'l.....,~ )~'/1 ~r~ I,... 1 J,.
',. .~ ., ) Or: r+ _rV""'d/ I - - ". ~ 11 ,; -- l '- i J ~
: f--.) I ~I+-".:'I, T ! ~ ". . \ P f T. ','~ { I r II. r\'(.v~t-_.t
~ tr~-t;.l -~~I- I ! I f L";:~I I \ I ~"\ :\^"- 1
i~-I-j -)j.1 \..---:;: ~.~ ~. .'. L I { "-I, ~rT T/ j- - - "oodh'uei 11'1
. ____,,.-_____ . -4lr"."' '4L, ... ,. I.J ~- l ~_ J' · r-
;~'~,~. ~~i 'ie l~.tt+~e\' ..;el ~~j~I~:'i ~~{..(..19.'1 I -. -f-.-~' ~-~'-'-'~..-;Y-.',lf-::"'j ~;f:~=-:-=Z~---.--iil;;c;,-\,--~., . ~',
f. r-~'J'lbl .\>1" -l.O~~ll:' ;;,;(.--..;;;-- )-'- Nbrllj/eld nt'1ol. II _ ,'--. \ ,.' r" it i --
~. _ 1 II { ;r~ L ~ --.. - -_eT I ~ 11 ~;~ . .\ 1 [- '_ear wp J_~ j -.
i r ,", ;~ . - I fft ~- ~e~ 1.-1 IU.~;;:r..] \ i 57 l~jl \ - ~1 5r.'-sJ/1 J:~>;J
r ~ I ' ~. .- "f -No. -" I..... II~'
f'4iiiIi 2030 POPULA nON DENSITY
~ DAKOTA COUNTY TRANSIT STUDY Figure 1
Cn'..t'1T1V~ Gt:.,~..,.....,
'"'''' 0:::0' Dakota County
14
l:I
"
-'
OCt
LEGEND
.
· ar::.;
D
CJ = Potential Transit
Expansion Area
CJ = Transit Taxing District
Source: !vktropolitan COllncil
,
?
",
,
,
;.
,
5
1
,
"
~J D
I
,t=1.
u::
l:l "
o
"
.4F.
Ii
~
CO~;~.L1. T1'1lC GROt". I ~c.
TRANSIT EXPANSION AREAS
DAKOTA COU~JTY SYSTEM PLAN
Dakota County
Figure 2
15
~
c.:oto:;ut!l-':C GaOl'r,t....:.
0
0 Ii 0
II a :;;-
K
1:1
LEGEND
[:==J = Market Area II
~ = Market Area III
CJ = Market Area IV
Source: Metropoliran COllncil
'I)
M.A.
o
1
I
.....,.!H4... '
t; t F
.-. '-l ( ~-
. <<'f-3j~.J... _
_, I '. 'U<W\A_."
r -.. _'''' ~ orl
-~-~f-f
.~ - ,- Co'::;' '"J
_.j"'---'~f- '
p.. '.. -==
I
V
a
"
.~.
,
III
DAKOTA COUNTY TRANSIT MARKET AREAS
DAKOTA COUNTY SYSTEI\,' PLAN
Dakota County
16
I:l
/
/
~
...........
....,
-)
..- \
.......-
_.=.Y
tl \.
Figure 3
LEGEND
u
.,
_ = Trainsitways on
dedicated ROW
.. = Express Corridor
Bus Service
_ = Arterial Corridor
Bus Service
C!) = Transit Center
. = Bus Garage
.-. g
K.~
/
Source: Metropolitan Council
r
;
I
'"
:~
-- .:\
.....-
-. ..
~ \
o
II
.
~.'
,
II
II
~
Cm;..;.utH\icGaoLT.lsc.
FUTURE TRANSIT CORRIDORS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DAKOTA COUNTY SYSTEM PLAN
Dakota County
Figure 4
17
" 0
LEGEND
Cl
Cl
_ = Transit Potential
Corridors
. . . = Future Transit
Potential Corridors
_ = New Transit Service
. SA.l.'tT,.s\1t
@
= New Pa rk & Ride
Facility
.
/
\\ ..'
1:I .
}
o
p -
J ':'
tJ
~--~,
~-
III
m
CO!'\5tltTJ:'.;C G!'.OlT.lsc.
LOCAL TRANSIT GAP
DAKOTA COUNTY SYSTEM PLAN
Dakota County
Figure 5
18
Findings & Conclusions
19
IV. Findings & Conclusions
Current Needs
· In general, current levels of transit investment appear to match the usage of
residents and types of land uses.
· Northern tier of the county is served by a variety of fixed-route and dial-a-ride
type services.
· Developing communities such as Lakeville and Farmington will soon be
approaching levels warranting transit service.
Future Challenges
· A more intense level of transit service is dependent upon a greater density of
jobs and housing.
· Supporting land use development will be critical in maximizing transit
ridership within the Cedar Avenue and 1-35 corridors.
· Strive to have the base transit services increase by a rate to match population
increase.
· Future intra-county transit service must be supported by higher densities and
transit -oriented development.
· Future travel trends indicate commuting needs to Eagan and also to Scott
County.
Funding Woes
· A total of $1.3 to $1.6 billion of new funding must be secured to implement
and operate all the services identified at the regional level (Figure 4).
Approximately $740 to $910 million of that will need to come from non-
federal sources.
· By 2020, the region will have to find approximately $121 million annually
($34 million for Dakota County projects) in order to operate all the transit
services identified. This represents over a 50% increase over current levels.
· Beyond the regional gap, there also exists a local services and infrastructure
gap (Figure 5). The costs and considerations of implementing these additional
services have not been identified in regional planning docu~ents.
20
,~
V. Next Steps
· Presentation of these findings to the County's RRA in March for approval
consideration
· Begin Phase II of the plan that includes:
i. Future service and infrastructure framework development.
1. Based on findings to include options, staging, oversight,
costs, connections, etc...
11. Coordination with other plans
1. Identify current relationships with other services and
programs
2. Develop short- and long-range recommendations for
coordination.
3. Identify opportunities for infrastructure development
111. Financial
1. Development of an analysis to determine costs for short-
and long-range recommendations; and
iv. Development of an implementation strategy.
· Conclude the entire plan this spring (anticipated May)
Role for cities
We have meet staff from most of the cities during meetings held in early
February. These meetings were held to discuss the survey results and cover
other issues and concerns, both current and future, that the cities may have
regarding transit services. It was also an opportunity to discuss plans for
development and identified infrastructure needed for transit. Weare very
appreciative of your previous involvement asked that you continue to assist us
as our staff and consultant team begin Phase II of the plan by:
· Providing plans and material that we may request in the future to assist
us in the identification of opportunities and development of
recommendations.
22
Page 1 of2
David Urbia
From:
Nilani A. Jayatilaka [NJayatilaka@mandklaw.com]
Wednesday, March 23, 20051 :58 PM
Nilani A. Jayatilaka; peter.bell@metc.state.mn.us; Judd Schetnan; greg.konat@co.dakota.mn.us;
tlawell@ci.apple-valley.mn.us; nacho.diaz@metc.ste.mn.us; tom .weaver@metc.mn.us;
smielke@ci.lakeville.mn.us; Beverley Miller; David Urbia; rkelley@ci.apple-valley.mn.us;
info@ci.apple-valley.mn.us; rep .dennis.ozment@house.mn; sen .pat.pariseau@senate.mn;
quinn .cheney@state.mn.us; will.branning@co.dakota.mn.us; brian .mcdan iel@metc.state.mn.us;
Steve Wilson
Subject: RE: HF 2076 and SF 1925 Legislation for Voluntary Expansion of the Taxing District
Sent:
To:
Enclosed is the correct attachment.
-----Original Message-----
From: Nilani A. Jayatilaka
sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 1:32 PM
To: 'peter.bell@metc.state.mn.us'; 'Judd Schetnan'; 'greg.konat@co.dakota.mn.us'; 'tlawell@ci.apple-
valley. mn .us'; 'nacho.diaz@metc.ste.mn .us'; 'tom. weaver@metc.mn.us'; 'smielke@ci.lakeville.mn.us';
'Beverley Miller'; 'durbia@ci.farmington.mn.us'; 'rkelley@ci.apple-valley.mn.us'; 'info@ci.apple-
valley. mn.us'; 'rep.dennis.ozment@house.mn'; 'sen .pat.pariseau@senate.mn';
'quinn .cheney@state.mn.us'; 'will.branning@co.dakota.mn.us'; 'brian .mcdaniel@metc.state.mn.us';
'swilson@CI.FARMINGTON.MN.US'
Subject: HF 2076 and SF 1958 Legislation for Voluntary Expansion of the Taxing District
Good Afternoon,
Legislation was introduced today addressing voluntary expansion of the taxing district. The
legislation, HF 2076 (Cybart, Holberg and Garofalo) and SF 1958 (Gerlach) outlines the
voluntary entry into the taxing district (allows a phase-in approach) as well as the ability to use
capital dollars for operating expenses. The bill is explained below:
What Does This Bill Do?
. Expands the taxing district voluntarily (by agreement between the city and Met Council)
. The agreement must describe the type and level of transit service
. The agreement would also allow the following:
. Let a city join the taxing district over a 8-year period
. Allow for an agreement to have Met Council levy within the city - the levy could
vary throughout the city, i.e. be phased in, but could not exceed the existing
taxing district levy (this language would allow any phase-in approach agreed to
by the city and Met Council over the 8-year period).
. The levy collected by Met Council could be used for operations or to pay
principal and interest on transit bonds (this legislation allows for any combination
of funding, i.e. 100% operating to 0% capital or 100% capital to 0% operating,
etc.)
. Following the 8 year phase-in period, the city would be subject to the levy
pursuant to the rest of the transit taxing district
. This legislation would go into effect for taxes payable in 2006
If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
3/24/2005
Page 2 of2
Thank you.
Nilani A. Jayatilaka M.P.H
Messerli & Kramer P.A.
Suite 450,145 University Avenue West
St. Paul, MN 55103
Direct: 651 .556.9205
T: 651.228.9757
F: 651.228.9787
E-mail: njayatilaka@mandklaw.com
3/24/2005
S.F. No. 1925, as introduced 84th Legislative Session (2005-2006) Posted on Mar 22.2005
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
1. 23
1.24
1.25
1.26
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.17
2.18
2.19
2.20
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.25
2.26
2.27
2.28
A bill for an act
relating to metropolitan transit; allowing
municipalities to contract with the Metropolitan
Council to join the metropolitan transit district;
authorizing a property tax levy; amending Minnesota
Statutes 2004, sections 473.446, subdivision 3;
473.4461.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 473.446,
subdivision 3, is amended to read:
Subd. 3. [CERTIFICATION AND COLLECTION.] Each county
treasurer shall collect and make settlement of the taxes levied
under subdivisions 1 and 1a and section 473.4461, subdivision 3,
with the treasurer of the council. The levy of transit taxes
pursuant to this section shall not affect the amount or rate of
taxes which may be levied by any county or municipality or by
the council for other purposes authorized by law and shall be in
addition to any other property tax authorized by law.
[EFFECTIVE DATE.] This section is effective for taxes
payable in 2006 and thereafter.
Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 473.4461, is
amended to read:
473.4461 [ADDITIONS TO TRANSIT TAXING DISTRICT.]
Subdivision 1. [SERVICE EXPANSION PLAN REQUIRED.]
Notwithstanding any provision of section 473.446 or any other
law, the Metropolitan Council may not levy a tax under section
473.446, subdivision 1, in any city or town not included in the
transit taxing district as it existed on January 1, 2001, unless
the council and the governing body of that city or town have
agreed on a service expansion plan.
Subd. 2. [CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT TO JOIN TRANSIT DISTRICT.]
Notwithstanding section 473.446, subdivision 2, the Metropolitan
Council may enter into an agreement with a city or a town to
join the transit taxing district. The agreement shall describe
the types and levels of transit services to be provided within
the area comprising the city or town. The agreement may provide
for a period of time, not to exceed 8 years, during which the
area comprising the city or town will not be subject to the levy
under section 473.446, subdivision 1. The agreement must
provide that after a period of time, not to exceed 8 years, the
area comprising the city or town shall be subject to the levy
under section 473.446, subdivision 1.
Subd. 3. [PROPERTY TAX LEVY; MUNICIPALITY JOINING TRANSIT
DISTRICT.] An agreement described in subdivision 2 may provide
for a transit tax to be levied within the area comprising the
city or town by the Metropolitan Council. The rate of tax may
not exceed the rate that the area comprising the city or town
would be subject to if it were a part of the transit district
under section 473.446, subdivision 2. A tax levied under this
subdivision may be used to fund transit operations or to pay the
costs of principal and interest for transit-related bonded
debt. The agreement may provide that the rate of tax levied
under this subdivision may vary within the area comprising the
city or town, as long as the rate in any portion of the area
2.29
2.30
2.31
2.32
2.33
2.34
2.35
2.36
3.1
does not exceed the rate that would be in effect under section
473.446, subdivision 1. If an agreement to join the transit
taxing district authorizes a levy under this subdivision, a copy
of that portion of the agreement must be filed with the auditor
or auditors of the county or counties containing the city or
town.
[EFFECTIVE DATE.] This section is effective the day
following final enactment, for taxes payable in 2006 and
thereafter.
...
-2-
Message
Page 1 of 1
David Urbia
From: Robin Selvig [rselvig@mvta.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 2:24 PM
To: David Urbia
Cc: Beverley Miller
Subject: Surveys and related information
Attached please find a copy of the notice about Watson's closing that was posted on our web-site for the month of
January and much of February. Also attached is a copy of the notice posted at the Apple Valley Transit Station
and f1yered on cars parking at Watson's regarding the change in parking arrangements. We also sent an e-mail
out on Jan. 31 to anyone who had registered for e-mail alerts from the MVTA, reminding them that the Watson's
lot would no longer be accessible to MVTA riders. Finally, today we received word that Carmike will begin towing
cars parked in their portion of the lot. We have posted and flyered cars in the Carmike portion of the lot with a
notice today, and have posted that same information on our web-site.
Also attached is the text of several MVTA surveys. The longer survey gathered general data regarding rider
habits, critical issues facing riders and demographic data. It was last conducted in early 2003. The other surveys
are instruments we use in gathering data regarding specific routes.
Robin Selvig, Customer Relations Manager
Minnesota Valley Transit Authority
100 E. Highway 13
Burnsville, MN 55337
Phone: (952)882-7504
Fax: (952) 882-7600
3/24/2005
Do Not Park in Carmike Cinema
South (Main) Lot
MVTA riders are asked not to park in the south portion (main section) of
the Carmike Cinema lot. Carmike will tow cars at the owner's expense.
Riders can continue to park in the north portion of the lot, between Gaslight
Drive and the Red Robin, across from the Apple Valley Transit Station.
Limited parking is also available on the north side of I 55th St., east of
Gaslight Dr. and on Garrett Avenue (southeast of the Transit Station).
Other Park & Ride locations, with parking capacity, include:
Palomino Hills Park & Ride, Pennock & Palomino,Apple Valley
· Route 476 to Downtown Minneapolis
· Route 442 to Burnsville Center/Mall of America
Blackhawk Park & Ride, 1-3SE at Blackhawk/Cliff Rds, Eagan
· Route 472 to Downtown Minneapolis
· Route 480 to Downtown St. Paul
· Route 440 to/from AVTS and Mall of America
Eagan Transit Station, 1-3SE at Yankee Doodle/Pilot Knob Rds,
Eagan
· Route 470 to Downtown Minneapolis
· Route 484 to Downtown St. Paul
· Route 445 tolfrom Eagan YMCA and Mall of America
Heart of the City Park & Ride, I 26th & Pillsbury, Burnsville
· Route 460 to Downtown Minneapolis
· Route 480 to Downtown St.Paul
The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) is the public transportation provider for Apple Valley. Burnsville, Eagan, Rosemount, and Savage.
3/22/05
Attention MVT A Riders
Watson's has declined to renew MVTA. parking privileges in
their parking lot. As of TU,esday, February 1, there will be
NO MVTA PARKING IN WATSON'S LOT.
IfMVTA riders continue to use Watson's lot after that date,
they will be towed.
The City of Apple Valley has changed parking restrictions on 15Sth
Street to allow on-street parking (east of Gaslight Drive only, north side
only). Routes currently picking up riders near the bus bench on 155th
will continue to do so, although the shelter will be removed from
Watson's parking lot. In addition, there is also on-street parking
available on Garret Drive, which is immediately southeast of the Apple
Valley Transit Station parking lot. On the back side of this flyer is a
map showing on-street parking now available.
Below are other :MVTA locations which have parking capacity and offer
similar service. If you have questions or would like schedules, contact
MVTA at 952-882-7500 or via web-site at www.mvta.com~ Thank you
for your cooperation.
=t.
Palomino Hills Park & Ride. Pennock &. Palomin'o, Apple Valley
Route 476 to Downtown Minneapolis
Route 442 to Burnsville Center/Mall of America
Blackhawk Park & Ride, 1-35E at Blackhawk/Cliff Roa~s, Eagan
R.oute 472 to Downtown Minneapolis
Route 480 to Downtown St. Paul
Route 440 to AVTS/Mall of America
Eagan Transit Station, 1-3SE at Yankee Doodle/Pilot Knob Roads, Eagan
Routes 470. , to Downtown Minneapolis
. Route 484 to Downtown St. Paul
Route 445 to Eagan YMCA/Mall of America
'Heart of the City Park & Ride, t26th & Pillsbury, BurnsvHle
; Route 46'0 to Downtown Minneapolis
Route 480 to Downtown St:Paul
On-Street
Parking
__... ........-_-0.-.....-
....~
- .....-.-........
"-
~',
\
\,
.........
..,,"'.,....~
Restrictions
MVTA Parking at Watson's Lot Terminated on February 1
.
Your pass to people and places.
. .
MVTA Parking at Watson's Lot Terminated on February 1
12/30/2004 11 :40 AM
The City of Apple Valley has changed parking restrictions on 155th Street to allow on-street parking
(east of Gaslight Drive only. north side only). Routes currently picking up riders near the bus bench
on 155th Street will continue to do so, although the shelter will be removed from Watson's parking
lot. In addition, therels also on-street parking available on Garret Drive, which is immediately
southeast of the Apple Valley Transit Station lot.
The City of Apple Valley has two parking restrictions that will continue to be enforced:
a.Parking is not allowed between 3:00AM and 6:00AM.
b. In the event of overnight snowfall, there will be no parking allowed if the street has not been
plowed. However, in the event of snowfall during the day, cars which are already parked on the
street will not be ticketed.
MVTA continues to offer parking at the following Park and Ride facilities.
Palomino Hills Park & Ride, Pennock & Palomino, Apple Valley
Route 476 to Downtown Minneapolis
Route 442 to Burnsvijle CenterlMall of America
Blackhawk Park & Ride, 1-35E at Blackhawk/Cliff Roads, Eagan
Route 472 to Downtown Minneapolis
Route 480 to Downtown St. Paul
Route 440 to A VTS/Mall of America
Eagan Transit Station, 1-35E at Yankee Doodle/Pilot Knob Roads, Eagan
Route 470 to Downtown Minneapolis
Route 4801 484 to Downtown S1. Paul
Route 445 to Eagan YMCNMaU of America
Heart of the City Park & Ride, 126th & Pillsbury, Bumsvi1le
Route 460 to Downtown Minneapolis
Route 480 to Downtown S1. Paul
Copyright 2004 Minnesota Valley Transit Authority
http://www.mvta.com/printviewI76a173dO-b 1 d9-4db6-8e43-fdcffOb3b544.html
Page 1 of 1
3/21/2005
MVT A Riders,
A new Governor, Senators, Representatives and leadership will be installed early this year, and they will be faced with
making critical decisions about a number of issues. Please help us gain insight regarding customer perceptions on
transit- and transportation-related issues so we can make our case before the State Legislature. We need to hear
from you. Please take a moment to answer the following questions (complete only one survey). Return
completed survey to your driver by Ian. 13. (Results will be featured in a future MVT A Newsletter).
INSTRUCTIONS re: marking survey forms
What route are you riding today?
420 421 425 426
439 449 460/460U
427
464
432
470
440
472
442
476
444
477
445
480
484
489
Where did you board the bus?
@) Along the route @) At a park & ride
If you boarded at a park & ride, how did you get to the park & ride?
@) Drove@)Dropped off @) Transferred from another bus
If you transferred from another bus was it @) MVT A@) Metro Transit @) DARTS/Metro Mobility
How long have you ridden MVT A buses?
@) Less than I month @) I month to I year
@) 1-5 years
@)More than 5 years
How many days per week do you ride the bus?
@)I
@)2
@)3
@)'4
@)5
@)6
@)7
What is one main reason you take the bus?
@) Convenience @) Environmental @) Saves time
@) Car not available @) Promotional Offer
@) Other
@) Do not own a car @) Saves money
@) Avoids Stress of Driving
What is the primary purpose of your trip today?
@) Work @) Social @) School@) Medical
@) Shopping
@) Other
If transit had not been available, how would you have made this trip?
@) Drive alone @) Taxi @) Someone would drive me @) Walk @) Bike @) I could not have made trip
How many working automobiles does your household have available for use?
@) 0 @) I @) 2 @) 3 @) 4 @) 5 or more
How did you pay your fare today?
@) Cash @) Token @) 3 I-day pass
@) Other
@) Metropass
@) U-Pass@) Stored-value card
Did your employer subsidize the cost of your bus fare? @) Yes
If yes, how much of your transit fare does your employer pay?
@) <25% @) 25-49% @) 50-74% @) 75-100%
@)No
Currently, bus fares pay less than one-third of the cost of most rides.
to cover the cost of your ride?
@) Yes @) No
If yes, how much additional would you be willing to pay?
@) 5 cents @) I 0 cents @) 15 cents @) 20 cents
Would you be willing to pay additional bus fare
@) 25 cents
@) 50 cents
Would you support increasing the gas tax to fund road and transit projects?
@) Yes @) No
If yes, how much additional would you be willing to pay?
@) 1-2 cents
@) 3-5 cents
@) 6-7 cents
@) 8-1 0 cents
@) More than 10 cents
Would you support a Constitutional amendment dedicating 100% of sales tax on motor vehicles for roads, bridges and
transit instead of a portion going into the general fund?
@) Yes @) No
Would you support a referendum in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area for a '12 cent increase in the sales tax with
additional revenue dedicated to roads and transit?
@) Yes @) No
If the HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) lanes were open to single-occupancy vehicles, would you continue to use ride the
bus? @) Yes @) No
If additional funds became available for transit what service(s) would best meet your needs? Please rank with" I"
being your highest priority.
_More local service _More express routes _Longer express route hours
_Longer local service hours _New Areas Served (i.e., Lakeville or Farmington)
_Park & Ride amenities _Suburb-to-Suburb Service _More Park & Ride location(s)
What? Where? Where?
If additional service was available, do you believe your family, friends and neighbors would use public transportation?
@)Yes @No
Demographic Data (for comparison purposes only)
@) Male @) Female
Which best describes your ethnic background?
@) African American @) Caucasian @) Hispanic
@) Asian @) American Indian
@) Other
What is your age?
@) Under 18
@) 55-64
@) 18-24
@) 65 or older
@) 25-34
@) 35-44
@) 45-54
Approximately what was your family's total income last year?
@) Less than $10,000 @) $1 0,000-19,999@) $20,000-29,000@) $30,000-39,999
@) $40,000-49,999@) $50,000-59,999@) $60,000-69,999@) $70,000- or more
One of the issues being considered by a Dakota County taskforce is the concept of BRT - Bus Rapid Transit - in the
Cedar Avenue corridor. This system can operate on standard roadways or on special transitways. The vehicles are
high-capacity buses that are designed more like rail cars. Fares are typically collected prior to the boarding of vehicles,
and advanced technologies are used to provide the best possible service. Transit stations and shelters are integrated
components of the system, and service is frequent. If funding were to become available to implement BRT, please
rank the following in order of importance to you (I equals most important, 3 equals least important):
_Transit Stations
_Service frequency
_Speed/one-seat ride
Please provide any additional comments here or on a separate piece of paper.
Would you be willing to help the MVT A with our legislative efforts by sending a letter, an e-mail or even testify before
a committee? We have a rider coalition and would like your support. If you are interested, please sign up below.
Name
Address
City, State, Zip-
code
Daytime phone Evening phone
address
E-mail
I'm willing to: @) Send e-mail(s) to my legislators
@) Send letter(s) to my legislators
@) Testify before a Legislative Committee @) Other (please
describe)
Thank you!
You may have heard that the MVTA will be opening a new transit facility in Apple Valley. The Apple Valley
Transit Station is scheduled to open this summer at a site just south of Menards at I 55th Street and Cedar
Avenue. At that time, the park & ride lots at Grace Lutheran Church and Apple Valley Square will close. In
order for MVTA staff to properly plan service at the new station, please take a few minutes to answer some
questions about how you use MVTA express buses.
I. Were you aware before now of the Apple Valley Transit Station project? (circle one)
Yes Somewhat No
2. Do you currently use a park & ride lot?
Yes No (Skip to question 3)
2a. Which one? (If more than one, which one most frequently?)
o Grace Lutheran Church/Apple Valley Square
o Palomino Hills/Christus Victor
o Blackhawk
o Other
2b. Why do you use that specific lot? (Check all that apply)
o Closest to home
o Closest to non-stop portion of route
o Most service/trips
o Security
o Amenities
o Other
Skip to question 4
3. If you don't use a park & ride lot, where do you typically board the morning express bus?
(Intersection or location) &
4. Keeping in mind that the Grace Lutheran Church/Apple Valley Square lots will close when Apple Valley
Transit Station is opened:
4a. Do you think you would probably use the new station if the schedule is pretty much the same as it is
today at Grace Lutheran?
Yes No Not Sure
4b. Do you think you would probably use the new station if the schedule were revised to include more trips
that skip Palomino Hills (or in the case of St. Paul service, run directly via Cedar Avenue and 1-35E into St.
Paul)?
Yes
No
Not Sure
(More questions on reverse side!)
5. Based on what you know so far about the Apple Valley Transit Station, what would your expectations be
about MVTA services at the new station?
D More frequent express service
D Earlier and/or later express service
D New express routes/destinations, such as:
D More frequent local service
D New local routes/destinations, such as:
D Other:
6. Please rate various aspects of MVTA express bus services, with 1
Condition of Buses I 2 3
Frequency of Service I 2 3
Reliability of Service I 2 3
Convenience I 2 3
Courtesy of Drivers I 2 3
Courtesy of Other MVTA Personnel I 2 3
being poor and 5 being excellent:
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
7. Please provide some information about yourself.
and individual responses will not be revealed.
Age: 17 or under 18-24 25-34
Sex: Male Female
Do you own or rent? Own Rent
Household Income:
under 20,000 20,000-29,999
40,000-59,999 60,000-79,999
Number of Cars/Trucks your household has:
o I 2 3 or more
Note:This information is strictly for statistical purposes only
35-44
45-64
65+
30,000-39,999
80,000 or more
8. Please provide your home address. Again, this information is for statistical purposes only and you will NOT be
put on a mailing list if you provide this information.
Street Address:
City, ZIP Code:
9. Other Comments <If you'd like a response, be sure to include your name and address or daytime
telephone number so we may contact you.)
MYTA, in conjunction with the City of Minneapolis, Metro Transit, and the other suburban transit agencies, is
currently studying bus operations in downtown Minneapolis in an attempt to improve the speed of bus traffic
and better manage auto traffic. As the end of heavy construction for the light rail line and the 3rd Avenue
improvements nears, the opportunity to make some long-term improvements in bus operations exists.
As part of this study, it is important for us to understand where our passengers are going when they exit the
bus in downtown. Your input will guide our decisions on how our downtown operations might be revised
and improved. Please help us by answering the following questions. (Note: your answers will be used
collectively only; individual responses will be kept private.)
I. What route are you riding today? (Check one)
449 460 464 470 472 476 477
o 0 0 0 ODD
2. Approximately what time will you arrive in Minneapolis? (Check one)
Before 6:30 a.m. 6:45 a.m. 7:00 a.m. 7: 15 a.m.
o 7:45 a.m. 0 8:00 a.m. D 8: 15 a.m. 0 8:30 a.m.
o between 9:00 a.m. ~ 4:00 p.m. 0 4:00 p.m. or latl;!
o 0
3. At what stop will you get off the bus?
Other
D
7:30 a.m.
D 8:45 a.m.
o
(OYER)
4. What will you do after you exit the bus?
MYTA, in conjunction with the City of Minneapolis, Metro Transit, and the other suburban transit agencies, is
currently studying bus operations in downtown Minneapolis in an attempt to improve the speed of bus traffic
and better manage auto traffic. As the end of heavy construction for the light rail line and the 3rd Avenue
improvements nears, the opportunity to make some long-term improvements in bus operations exists.
As part of this study, it is important for us to understand where our passengers are going when they exit the
bus in downtown. Your input will guide our decisions on how our downtown operations might be revised
and improved. Please help us by answering the following questions. (Note: your answers will be used
collectively only; individual responses will be kept private.)
I. What route are you riding today? (Check one)
449 460 464 470 472 476 477
o 0 0 0 ODD
2. Approximately what time will you arrive in Minneapolis? (Check one)
Before 6:30 a.m. 6:45 a.m. 7:00 a.m. 7: 15 a.m.
o 7:45 a.m. 0 8:00 a.m. 0 8: 15 a.m. 0 8:30 a.m.
o between 9:00 a.m. ~ 4:00 p.m. 0 4:00 p.m. or latl;!
o 0
3. At what stop will you get off the bus?
Other
o
7:30 a.m.
o 8:45 a.m.
o
(OYER)
4. What will you do after you exit the bus?
Transfer to another bus:
o What route? 3 7 9 16 50 94BCD Other
Going what dir@:ion? n nOD 0 0
Walk to my final destination
o Be picked up by someone driving a car/van/truck
o Rollerblade or ride my bike to my final destination
o Other (explain briefly)
o
5. What is the final destination of your ENTIRE trip, not just the portion on an MVTA bus? Please give an
intersection, address, landmark, or company name.
6. In the winter, do you use the skyway system to get to/from the bus... (Check One)
Always Usually Rarely Never
o 0 0 0
7. If it were your decision, on what street/avenue would your bus operate...
Coming into downtown (to drop off)
Leaving downtown (picking up)
8. Does the downtown stop where you board the MVTA bus have a shelter? Yes No
If not, do you think you would use one if it were available? Yes 0 No 0
o 0
When you've ffnished the survey, please return it to the driver. Thanks for your participation!
4. What will you do after you exit the bus?
o Transfer to another bus:
What route? 0 3 0 7 0 9 0 16 0 50 0 94BCD
Going what direction?
o Walk to my final destination
o Be picked up by someone driving a car/van/truck
o Rollerblade or ride my bike to my final destination
o Other (explain briefly)
o Other
5. What is the final destination of your ENTIRE trip, not just the portion on an MVTA bus? Please give an
intersection, address, landmark, or company name.
6. In the winter, do you use the skyway system to get to/from the bus... (Check One)
o Always D Usually 0 Rarely D Never
7. If it were your decision, on what street/avenue would your bus operate...
Coming into downtqwn (to drop off)
Leaving downtown (picking up)
8. Does the downtown stop where you board the MVTA bus have a shelter? DYes ONo
If not, do you think you would use one if it were available? DYes DNo
When you've ffnished the survey, please return it to the driver. Thanks for your participation!
!4S-Scott Survey 2001.qxd 3/22/200~ Page 1
MVTA Olst::::-iiiilr"'.'-"
This survey is being conducted to help determine how MVTA bus service might be improvE
Please help us by answering the questions below. After you have finished filling out the su
please either:
. Give it to the driver, or
. Mail it back to us (no stamp is needed). Note: the Postal Service prefers that y<
tape (not staple) the open edges together.
Thanks for your help!
Please answer some questions about THIS BUS TRIP:
I. On what route are you currently riding (number & letter)?
2. What time did you board the bus?
3. Where did you board this bus? (Intersection or location)
&
4. How did you get to that bus stop?
0 Walked
+ 0 Drove and parked at a parking lot
0 Was dropped off
0 Transferred from another bus route - which one?
0 Other
5. How did you pay your fare for this trip?
0 Cash
0 Stored Value Card
0 3 I-day Pass/Metropass/U-Pass
0 Transfer
6. Which fare type did you pay?
o Adult 0 Senior 0 Ltd Mobility
o Youth/Student
7. Where will you get off this bus? (Intersection or location)
&
8. What will you do after you leave this bus?
o Walk to my final destination
o Drive a car parked at a parking lot
o Be picked up
o Transfer to another bus route - which one?
Other
-+-
+
[4S-Scott Survey 2001.qxd 3/22/200~ Page 2
Please answer some questions about your ENTIRE ONE-WAY trip today <not just.
portion on this bus):
9. Where did you begin your trip?
o Home
o Shopping/Personal business 0
I O. Where is that located?
o School/Work
Other
City:
Add r..c:c:/1 nt....c:..r-tinn.
II. What is your final destination?
o Home
o School/Work
Other
o Shopping/Personal business 0
12. Where is that located?
City:
Add ra.~c Ilnt'aorcaort'inn.
Please answer some questions about how you use bus service:
13. What times of year do you use the bus? (Check all that apply)
o Spring 0 Summer 0 Year-round
o Fall 0 Winter
14. How many days last week did you ride the bus?
0001020304050607
15. In the last year, to which of the following destinations have you ridde
the bus? (Circle all that apply)
o Downtown Minneapolis
o Downtown St. Paul
o Mall of America
o State Fair
o Airport
o Burnsville Center
Please provide some information about yourself. This information is strictly for Sta'
cal purposes and your identity will not be revealed.
16. What is your age?
o 17 or under 0 18-24 0 25-34
o 35-44 0 45-64 0 65 or over
17. Which of the following best describes your situation?
o Work full-time 0 Work part-time
o Unemployed 0 Retired
18. Do you own or rent?
o Student
o Other
o Own
o Rent
19. What is your annual household income?
o Under $20,000
o $40,000-$59,999
o $20,000-$29,999
o $60,000-$79,999
o $30,000-$39,999
o $80,000 or more
-+-
14S-Scott Survey 2001.qxd 3/22/200~ Page 3
20. How many vehicles (carsllight trucks) does your household have?
o 0
o
o 2
o 3 or more
21. If you use a pass or stored value card, where do you usually get it?
o Employer (including Metropass and UPass)
o Metro Transit Store - which one?
o Burnsville Transit Station
o Grocery Store - which one?
o Purchase by Mail
o Purchase online
o Other:
22. Please rate MVTA bus service on the following characteristics, with I
being poor and 5 being excellent:
Poor Average Exceller
Reliability (buses run on time) 2 3 4 5
Cleanliness of buses 2 3 4 5
Availability of seating 2 3 4 5
Comfort of seating 2 3 4 5
Appearance of buses 2 3 4 5
Courtesy of drivers 2 3 4 5
+ Frequency of service 2 3 4 5
Directness of route 2 3 4 5
Parking availability 2 3 4 5
Vehicle security at parking lot 2 3 4 5
Availability of schedules 2 3 4 5
Availability of tickets/passes 2 3 4 5
Reliability (buses run on time) 2 3 4 5
Value for fare paid 2 3 4 5
Additional Comments/Suggestions:
Not enough space? Feel free to write us at the address on the reverse of the card, call us
952/882-7500, or email usatmvta@mvta.com.
-+-
~ Bonestroo
-=:II Rosene
~ Anderlil< &
1 \11 Associates
Engineers & Architects
Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderllk and Associates. Inc. Is an Afflrmallve Acllon/Equal Opportunity Employer
and Employee Owned
Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo. P.E. . Marvin l. Sorvala. PE. . Glenn R. Cook. P.E. . Robert G. Scllunicht. rE. .
Jerry A. Bourdon. PE. . Mark A. Hanson. PE.
Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene. PE. . Joseph C Anderlik. PE. . Richard E. Turner. PE. . Su,an M. Eberlin. CPA.
Associate Principals: Keith A. Gordon. P.E. . Robert R. Pfefferle. P.E. . Richard W. Foster. P.E. . David O. loskota. PE. .
Michael T. Rautmann. PE. . Ted K. Field. P.E. . Kennell' P Anderson. PE. . Mark R. Rolfs. PE. . DaVId A. Bonestroo. M.B.A. .
Sidney P Williamson. PE.. l.S. . Agnes M. Ring. M.B.A. . Allan Rick Schmidt. PE. . Thomas W. Peterson. PE. .
James R. Maland. P.E. . Miles B. Jensen, P.E. . l. Phillip Gravel III. P.E. . Daniel J. Edgerton. PE. . Ismael Martinez. P.E. .
Thomas A. Syrko. PE. . Sheldon J. Johnson. Dale A. Grove. PE. . Thomas A. Roushar. PE. . Robert J. Devery. PE.
Offices: St. Paul. St. Cloud. Rochester and Willmar. MN . Milwaukee. WI . Chicago. IL
Website: www.bonestroo.com
September 2, 2004
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
Re: Spruce Street Extension Project
Our File No. 141-03-207
Dear Mayor and Council:
Enclosed for your review is the Feasibility Report for the Spruce Street Extension Project. The
proposed project includes constructing an extension of Spruce Street and a bridge crossing of the
Vermillion River. Stormwater utility improvements will be constructed in accordance with the
City's Stonn Water Management Plan.
This report describes the improvements necessary to provide roadway and bridge improvements.
A proposed schedule and cost estimates for the proposed improvements are presented in the
report.
We would be pleased to meet with the City Council and Staff to discuss the contents of the report
at any mutually convenient time.
Respectfully submitted,
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Lee M. Mann, P .E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Kevin P. Kielb, P .E.
Project Engineer
I hereby certify that this Report was prepared by me or under
my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered
Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
Kevin P. Kielb, P.E.
Date: September 2. 2004
Reg. No. 23211
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113. 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
Table of Contents
Page No.
Letter of Transmittal
I
Table of Contents
2
Introduction
3
Discussion
3
Cost Estimates
8
Conclusions and Recommendations
9
Figure I - Location Plan
Figure 2 - Typical Sections
Figure 3 - Alternative A (Preferred Alternative)
Figure 4 - Future Roadway Alignment
Appendix
- Cost Estimate
- Figure 5 - Alternative B
Spruce Street Extension Project
2
Introduction
The City Council has requested this report to determine the feasibility of extending Spruce Street
approximately 1400 feet west of Denmark Avenue to a touchdown point outside of the existing
flood plain. The extension of Spruce Street will require a crossing of the Vermillion River.
Several alternative alignments were considered prior to determining the preferred alignment for
this segment of Spruce Street. Figure 1 depicts the general project location.
The proposed improvements include:
1) The construction of the Spruce Street Extension and
2) construction of a bridge over the Vermillion River.
Discussion
Background
The City of Farmington has determined that the extension of Spruce Street is necessary to
provide an east-west transportation corridor through the City. The proposed extension of Spruce
Street will connect the existing historic downtown district of Farmington with the new
commercial and residential area that is proposed for the area west of Denmark Avenue. The
project will require a crossing of the Vermillion River, which currently separates these two areas.
The crossing of the Vermillion River will provide a connection that will allow for a contiguous,
efficient and pedestrian friendly route between the two districts.
The two areas that will be connected by this project include a proposed development west of the
Vermillion River, which is anticipated to contain commercial and residential properties and the
existing developed area east of the river, which contains single and multi-family housing, as well
as the following facilities:
. Farmington High School
. Ice Arena
. County Library
. Senior Center
. City Hall
The City has received a Livable Communities grant from the Metropolitan Council for this
project. The grant is based on creating a community where connected patterns link housing, jobs
and services while maximizing use of existing infrastructure and facilities. The extension of
Spruce Street and construction of the Vermillion River Bridge provide a connected path linking a
variety of services and facilities.
Spruce Street Extension Project
3
Environmental Considerations
The Vermillion River is a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Trout Stream that
required special attention during the consideration of alternatives. The river crossing will also
require careful attention during project design and construction. Any extension of Spruce Street
to the west will require a crossing of the Vermillion River and will result in impacts to the
adjacent floodplain and wetlands.
The City will need to apply for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and FEMA prior to construction. Upon completion
of construction, a Letter of Map Revision will then be submitted which will include As-Built
information for the project. The roadway will be designed to remain out of the floodplain once
the floodplain has been crossed.
Street Improvements
Spruce Street currently extends from 14th Street to the west, terminates at Chippendale Avenue
(T.H. 3), commences again on the west side of Chippendale Avenue and continues through the
downtown area, terminating at Denmark Avenue (County Road 31). Spruce Street is shown on
the City Transportation Plan as an east-west connector and will be an important transportation
corridor through the city. This project is proposed to provide an extension of the existing
roadway to the west of Denmark A venue. Spruce Street, Between l8t Street and Denmark
Avenue, is a Municipal State Aid Street. The proposed extension of Spruce Street will be
designed to meet State Aid standards.
A 10' trail is proposed to be constructed on the north side of the new roadway beginning at
Denmark A venue and carried through to the proposed Town Square. The pathway will be
constructed according to City standards and policies.
The proposed street sections are shown on Figure 2. Drainage is proposed to be conveyed
through a new storm sewer system.
Street lights in the project area are proposed to be installed in accordance with the decorative
street light program. The City may want to consider a separate agreement for the installation and
long term maintenance of the street lights.
Alignment Considerations
Balancing the needs of motorists, pedestrians and the environment is a key component of this
project. Three alternatives were reviewed to determine the most feasible alignment for the
roadway extension. Each of the three alternatives includes a right turn lane at Denmark Avenue
and provides for a widened median section west of the proposed river crossing. Each of the
alternatives considered could be designed to meet State Aid geometric standards. The
alternatives considered are generally described as follows:
Spruce Street Extension Project
4
Alternative A (South Alignment): This alternative provides a direct east-west crossing
of the Vermillion River and includes a straight bridge section. After crossing the river,
the roadway alignment would curve northwest, out of the floodplain, and then follow an
alignment approximately parallel to the Vermillion River (see Figure 3). This is the
preferred alignment.
Alternative B (North Alignment): This alternative curves immediately to the north,
west of Denmark Avenue, and prior to crossing the Vermillion River. The alignment
then curves sharply back to the southwest and follows an alignment that approximately
parallels the Vermillion River. This alignment slightly reduces the wetland and
floodplain impacts and provides additional area for wetland mitigation. This alternative
was not selected due to the poor roadway geometrics associated with the design. A
preliminary layout of this alternative in the Appendix of this report for reference (Figure
5).
Alternative C (Straight East-West Alignment): A straight east-west alignment, which
provides for better roadway geometrics than the other two alternatives, was considered as
a potential alignment. This alternative was not selected as the preferred for
environmental reasons because of the significant impacts to the wetlands and floodplain
in this area.
Figure 4 depicts the future extension of the roadway to the west of the proposed project for
planning purposes.
Impacts
Wetlands
Each of the alignment alternatives analyzed would require wetland mitigation. The amount of
wetland impact for the preferred alternative is 1.74 acres. Wetlands must be replaced at a two to
one ratio, meaning that for every acre of wetland impacted, two acres must be created. The
wetland replacement will be created on-site to the extent practical. Wetland mitigation credits
are available for purchase through the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) wetland
bank. Because the proposed project is development driven, the City would be required to
reimburse BWSR for the mitigation credits. For budgeting purposes, an assumption was made
that all of the wetland mitigation would occur off-site.
The City will also incur on-going costs for wetland monitoring if the wetlands are created on-
site. The costs are estimated at $1,500 per year and will be required until the created wetlands
are established. Generally, once the wetlands are created, the establishment period will range
from 2 to 5 years.
Vermillion River Crossin2IFloodnlain Issues
Each of the alternatives analyzed require a crossing of the Vermillion River and would require
fill in conjunction with both roadway and bridge construction. The preferred alignment avoids
any flood plain impacts beyond those required to cross the Vermillion River.
Spruce Street Extension Project 5
Bridge / Structural Considerations
The crossing of the Vermillion River will require construction of a bridge just west of Denmark
Avenue. Considerations have been given to maintaining the existing river channel, maintaining
flood levels and aesthetic bridge treatments. Alternatives A (preferred alignment) and C would
allow for a rectangular bridge deck, which allows for a more cost efficient means of
construction. The curvilinear alignment associated with the Alternative B bridge alignment
would most likely require a steel substructure, rather than precast concrete constfllction. The
estimated project cost for Alternatives A (preferred alignment) and C is approximately
$1,200,000. The bridge type associated with Alternative B would add approximately $500,000
to the project costs.
Bridge Aesthetics
The City has expressed a desire to make aesthetics a part of the bridge program. Achieving the
aesthetic quality desired is an iterative process. The appropriate balance of visual character,
quality and cost is best accomplished by bringing interested parties into the design process. Our
recommendation is to form a design group, gather data and ideas, and work together to select the
final product desired.
The additional costs for aesthetic treatments for a bridge can vary greatly. To help put those
costs in perspective, Mn/DOT has established guidelines to help guide projects. Recognizing
that the amount of additional funding to invest in aesthetics varies depending on the significance
of the bridge, variable participation amounts have been developed dependent on the project
situation and bridge. Mn/DOT defines three levels, or categories, of bridges as a guide in
determining the aesthetic attention appropriate for the give bridge project.
Level A: Level A is used for project of major aesthetic importance. Characteristics of structures
in this category are highly visible bridges, bridge projects that generate substantial citizen
interest, bridge locations in environmentally sensitive and historic locations and bridges that are
historic themselves.
Level B: Level B is used for bridge where moderate aesthetic treatment is appropriate, but not to
the extent that it controls the design, This level includes grade separation over high volume
roadways, bridges near recreation areas, parks, or recreational waterways.
Level C: Level C is used for small or routine bridges where minor aesthetic treatment is
appropriate. This level includes low visibility bridges, bridges over non-recreational waterways,
bridges over railroads, or overpasses on low-volume roads.
The amounts shown in the table below represent suggested percentage cost increases above the
cost of a conventional bridge. Generally, a pre-stressed girder type bridge with standard railings
and rustication treatments are considered the basis for estimating the cost of a conventional
bridge. Assuming the project cost ofthe basic bridge is $1,200,000:
Spruce Street Extension Project
6
Table of Increased Cost for Bridge Aesthetics
Level % Increase Cost Increase
Level A Bridges 15% max $180,000
Level B Bridges 7% max $ 84,000
Level C Bridges 5% max $ 60,000
A base amount of $132,000 (midway between Level A and Level B) was included in the cost
portion of this report for bridge aesthetics. This item will be addressed in greater detail as the
project proceeds to fmal design.
Denmark Avenue Issues
Based on the projected increase in traffic through this area, left and right turn lanes are
recommended for Denmark Avenue. These improvements are recommended as a part of this
project. The proposed improvements to Denmark Avenue are shown on Figure 3.
Storm Sewer/Drainage
A storm drainage system will be constructed along Spruce Street to convey storm water away
from the roadway and into ponding areas. The roadway will be designed to MnlDOT State Aid
drainage design standards. Final storm water ponding locations will be determined during final
design and will coordinated with the ponding requirements for the adjacent development.
Easements and Permits
The crossing of the Vermillion River will require careful coordination with the following
agencIes:
Wetland Conservation Act (wetland impacts/replacement)
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (floodplain impacts)
US Army Corp of Engineers (404 permit)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (floodplain impacts)
Local Watersheds (general permit)
The MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Army Corp of Engineer (ACOE) permits
will be required for the bridge construction and wetland mitigation at the Vermillion River.
A permit from Dakota County will be required for work with adding turn lanes to Denmark
Avenue (CSAH 31).
The City is the Local Government Agency administering the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA).
Wetland impacts and subsequent replacements will be permitted through the City.
An AUAR has been prepared which includes this segment of Spruce Street. For this reason,
there will not be the need for additional environmental review (EA, EA W, etc.) for this project.
Spruce Street Extension Project
7
Cost Estimates
The project costs for the preferred alternative is presented below. An itemized cost estimate is
provided in the appendix. The cost estimate is based on 2004 construction costs and includes
10% for contingencies and 27% for engineering, legal and administration. The estimated project
cost does not include costs for easement or right-of-way acquisition.
Estimated Project Costs
Total Estimated
Spruce Street Extension -Alternative A (preferred alternative) Project Costs
South AIi nment
~!Jad.!Vily"go~!._______.________________________________________________..__..._.________ $1,293,QQ.Q.:.Q9
Storm Sewer Cost $137,000.00
Bridge co~I~===_-=---=-=~=_=_===__===~_===--===~:==::::::=:=::=====::::::=_~:_ $1,200,000.00
Bridge A~_~hetic~___________._______ ________...___.____.__m__._______________ $132,000.00
Denmark Avenue Costs $154,000.00
W~~landMJ!!9.~tion-Cost-------==__==_=:=~_=__==_===__===:==:=:::::::::~_=:::::::::=:---$130,OOO.60
Total Preferred Alternative Cost $3,046,000.00
Spruce Street Extension Project
8
Conclusions and Recommendations
The proposed improvements in this report are feasible and cost-effective as they relate to general
engineering principles and construction procedures. The feasibility of this project as a whole is
subject to a financial review. The proposed improvements are necessary to provide a contiguous
east/west connection through the south portion of the City. Each of the alternatives analyzed will
have wetland and floodplain impacts. It is the goal of the City to provide a safe and continuous
extension of Spruce Street while minimizing these impacts where possible. Based on
information contained in this report, it is recommended that:
1. This report be adopted as the guide for the street extension and described utilities;
2. The City conduct a legal and fiscal review ofthe proposed project;
3. The Spruce Street extension be constructed according to Alternative A (Preferred
alternative);
4. The following tentative schedule be implemented for the project:
Spruce Street Improvements Proposed Project Schedule:
Acce t F easibili Re ort
Hold Public Hearing and Authorize Preparation of Plans and
S ecifications
Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize
Advertisement for bids
Bid Date
Acce t Bids - Award Contract
Be in Construction
Com lete Construction
Se tember 7, 2004
October 18, 2004
January 17,2005
Febru 18,2005
Februa 21,2005
Ma , 2005
November, 2005
Spruce Street Extension Project
9
II
'~
r,:
;~~~
s~'"
~.u
..~
"...,
~~~~, 1':
*~
.If'
\; '. J
i,;
""}
, ..:11
T
I!!
~g ~~ ~
i ii ~~ I
I ;1;1 ~
I I I
I I
i ~ oJ h ~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
is! ~lll ~ ~~ w
~ ~~ ~ ..5
DIID~
o
~ i
I
~
~
I ; ~ ~
III
r
!\\, .)<
.'
~
.
"
",.
'\
,....~~.,,- -' ~- -_-....-
o
o
N
8 '0
.!!.
o
.5,
C>
8~
tn
~
ell VI ~
g ~2 E
L.. Q)=.!!! ~
tlCl...u 4:
Q)~~5: '"
~~~~ ~
~O~!
.q-
W
CC
::J
C>
i:i:
z
o
Vi
z
W
f-
X
W
f-
W
W
0:::
f-
(f)
W
U
:::>
0:::
D-
(f)
W
0:::
:::>
f-
:::>
LL
,...
o
('oj
I
..,
o
I
:0:
;0
8
8
('oj
Z
~ ~
Q ~
Z I- ...
~ Cj 0
C> I-
~ W
::::; w
CC ~
~ (f)
I..L.. W ~
o g ;::;
>- 0:: ~
I- (L ~
U (f) Ii:
II
$
~~ ~~ ~
~ !~!; i
~ ~~ d ~
I I I I
I I
i ~ -' h i
~ e ~ 3! 0
~ ~i! ~~ ;
iilDo
,.
. .
.
~
Ili~~
III
~
..
:;:.~ iJ.'-t;
l": -"<{:""
.,
;';1:'<l
.;;
.~
~'.1
~
~.
'"
o
ni
ol:l Vl e
o QJ.
o .::J/.~:E
L. QJ:=.!!! ~
t) c J... U <(
~~~~ "
S~~~ ~
~~~!
"
~
I
..,
0
I
:t
;i
'"
8
~
~ ~
Z t-
o ~
i= Vi
0<{ z ~
Z ~
0:: z <(
~ x 0
w W
f0- e.:>
-1 ~ I-
0<{ W
~ W
0 0:: g:
<(
W lJ... (f)
0:: ~
0:: lJ... W 0
W 0 U ....
LL :::::> ~
w >- 0:: ~
0:: I- 0.. "
U (f) Ii:
ll..
~.
=1l
L
R"Cldl~
ct
10'01112'0
TRAIL THRU
R"ClCtl~~
_ 2% 1YP
12.0 Ii
THRU
eo .0
ReClctlon ~eClctton
2% -
SPRUCE STREET WEST OF BRIDGE
NOT TO SCALE
SPRUCE STREET
FROM DENMARK AVE TO BRIDGE
NOT TO SCALE
MetOol ROollIng
Ooncl Concrete"'""\...
POorOopet
Concrete ROoll
(Type n
SPRUCE STREET BRIDGE
NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL SECTIONS
CITY OF FARMINGTON
SPRUCE STREET EXTENSION
FIGURE 2
FIGURE2.DWG
DA TE: SEPT 2004
COMM: 141-03-207
2.0
ReClctlon
.,1. Bonestroo
~ Rosene
~ Anderlik &
11J. Associates
Engineers &. Architects
~
I
ST.
W
>
..:
.~
1
j
PROJECT
LOCATIO
1,/.
~EFERRED ,
ALTERNATlVE/J .
,>
) <C
,,'" >'>'-'>~_.-
" ;.,._1
ASH
..,.~ST,
CITY OF FARMINGTON
SPRUCE STREET EXTENSION
FIGURE 1
JL]J Bonestroo
Rosene
~ Anderlik &
. ~I. Associates
Engineers & Architects
LOCATION MAP
L FIGURE' .DWG
DA TE: SEPT 2004
COMM: 141-03-207
~
Appendix
.11. Bonestroo
e Rosene
'W\1I Anderlik &
1 \/1 Associates
Engineers & Architects
BRAA Project No. 141-03-207 SPRUCE STREET EXTENSION Denmark Avenue
Alternative A
September 1, 2004 COST ESTIMATE Total Total
I NO. I ITEM I UNITS I UNIT PRICE QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY PRICE
STORM SEWER
1 18" RC PIPE APRON EACH $ 450.00 2 $ 900.00 0 $ -
2 TRASH GUARD FOR 18" PIPE APRON EACH $ 600.00 2 $ 1,200.00 0 $
3 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L1N FT $ 25.00 320 $ 8,000.00 0 $
4 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L1NFT $ 30.00 1,64 $ 49,200.00 0 $
5 CATCH BASIN EACH $ 1,200.00 $ 9,600.00 0 $ 1
6 CATCH BASIN/MANHOLE EACH $ 1,800.00 1 $ 18,000.00 o $
7 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC 1 EACH $ 2,000.00 1 $ 2,000.00 o $ -
8 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH $ 350.00 18 $ 6,300.00 o $
9 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS V TON $ 100.00 3 $ 3,000.00 o $
SUBTOTAL $ 98,200.00 $ .
10% CONTINGENC' $ 9,820.00 $
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 108,020.00 $
27% ENG, LEGAL, ADM" $ 29,165.40 $ .
TOTAL STORM SEWER PROJECT COST $ 137,185.40 $ -
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
1 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM $ 50.000.00 0.9 $ 45,000.00 0.1 $ 5,000.00
2 CLEARING ACRE $ 2,500.00 2.9 $ 7,479.11 0 $
3 GRUBBING ACRE $ 2,500.00 3.0 $ 7,479.11 0 $
4 SAWING BIT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH L1NFT $ 1.00 $ 1,800.0 $ 1,800.00
5 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQFT $ 0.50 o $ 17,500.0 $ 8,750.00
6 COMMON EXCAVATION rEV) CUYD $ 5.00 2.127. $ 10,636.44 530 $ 2,650.00
7 MUCK EXCAVATION CUYD $ 15.00 17,000. $ 255,000.00 o $
8 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW CUYD $ 12.00 22,750. $ 273,000.00 1,500 $ 18,000.00
9 COMMON BORROW CUYD $ 6.00 21,497. $ 128,985.42 2,650.0 $ 15,900.00
10 TOPSOIL BORROW LV CUYD $ 19.00 851. $ 16.169.00 250 4,750
11 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 TON $ 12.00 3,750. $ 45,000.00 750.0 $ 9,000.00
12 TYPE MV 3 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (B) TON $ 42.00 546. $ 22 932.00 220.0 $ 9.240.00
13 TYPE LV 3 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE IB TON $ 39.00 764. $ 29,796.00 360.0 $ 14,040.00
14 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GALLON $ 2.00 347. $ 694.00 200.0 $ 400.00
15 6" CONCRETE WALK SQFT $ 5.00 3,500. $ 17,500.00 o $
16 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L1NFT $ 11.00 4,071. $ 44,781.00 o $
17 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM $ 7,500.00 $ - 1.0 $ 7,500.00
18 SIGN PANELS TYPE C SQFT $ 20.00 57. $ 1,150.00 22.5 $ 450.00
19 INSTALL SIGN TYPE C EACH $ 250.00 18. $ 4,500.00 2.0 $ 500.00
20 PAVEMENT MESSAGE RIGHT ARROW EPOXY EACH $ 200.00 1.0 $ 200.00 4.0 $ 800.00
21 PAVT MESSAGE (LEFT ARROW EPOXY EACH $ 200.00 0 $ - 4.0 $ 800.00
22 PAVT MESSAGE ILEFT-THRU ARROW) EPOXY EACH $ 200.00 1. $ 200.00 o $
23 PAVEMENT MESSAGE THRU ARROW EPOXY EACH $ 200.00 0 $ 4.0 $ 800.00
24 4" SOLID LINE WHITE-EPOXY L1N FT $ 0.25 3,000. $ 750.00 2,400. $ 800.00
26 12' STOP LINE WHITE-EPOXY L1NFT $ 4.00 24. $ 96.00 75.0 $ 300.00
27 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPOXY L1NFT $ 0.50 625. $ 312.50 1,800.0 $ 900.00
28 12" SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPOXY L1N FT $ 4.00 $ 100.0 $ 400.00
29 SILT FENCE. TYPE MACHINE SLICED L1N FT $ 3.50 3,400. $ 11,900.00 2,000.( $ 7,000.00
30 SEEDING ACRE $ 700.00 1.1 $ 738.25 0.3 $ 199.26
31 SEED MIXTURE 60B POUND $ 5.50 53. $ 291.50 15.0 $ 82.50
32 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 1 TON $ 350.00 2.1 $ 738.50 0.6 $ 199.50
33 DISK ANCHORING ACRE $ 110.00 2.0 $ 220.00 1.0 $ 110.00
34 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 SQYD $ 1.50 500. $ 750.00 o $
35 COMMERCIAL FERT ANALYSIS 22-5-10 POUND $ 0.55 317. $ 174.35 86.0 $ 47.30
SUBTOTAl $ 925,328.83 $ 110,061.26
10% CONTINGENC $ 92,532.88 $ 11,006.13
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 1,017,861.71 $ 121,067.39
27% ENG, LEGAL, ADM" $ 274,822.66 $ 32,688.20
TOTAL STREET PROJECT COST $ 1,292,684.38 $ 153,755.59
TOTAL STREET AND STORM SEWER PROJECT COST $ 1,429,869.78 $ 153 755.59
. .
~* ' '.<;..,t_..~
d" I" "-r;---
1~
o ell III 11
o "".8.!!
~ ~:e.~ ~
~~~ g .,
OOCIIl
lXlc!~~ ~
~~~i
,_..~_,..-~.___';1~~ __~~"..o.:..
~. ~. _~...",.,';O:_"-.
~~ "-:ok_;.",;__~ ;;. ::
;10/
~-~~ j
~\
,~
~
~.............
C>~
........... U1
"\ w
'Z Cl::
.. ::J
<..?
G:
If)
\
\ 'p,~"
-, .~ ~~~ dii ~
", \ l' 8B~"
>,n~t~~
'~':1~.i:?"-; "
;> i ~ ~ t ~~ ~
. ~
, ,
it
l!!li
~i
!ft
~!
i
~g ~~
,.. :JI= :J
; r ~~ I
~ ~ ~~
"" I!'~ I!'
~ ~13 ~IE ~
I
I
0
i ~i e
~ -' ~
~ ~ ~ ;ili 0
I;! I;!~ ll! ~~ ;
;;!
2 ~~ ~ ri~
IIIOG z
a
U)
z
z W
I-
a x
~ co I- W
<..?
i ~ ~ I-
~ ~ W :::!: W
51 ~ ~ > w
~ 51 I!' i= Cl:: ~
'" ~
III <( lL. If)
~ Z lL. W
> 0::: a u
, W ::J
I- >- Cl::
-1 I- 0...
<( U If)
....
o
'"
I
,.,
o
I
~
;i
'"
o
()
~-:
....
8
'"
....
ill
Vl
~
<(
a
! -. _~.. *i.
~
a
iii
'"
'"
::J
"
lL
Page 1 of 1
David Urbia
From: Randy Distad
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 20054:45 PM
To: David Urbia
Subject: FW: Response
FYI on the response that I received from Jeff King regarding pro forma and final report presentation to council. If
you wanted to print this off and bring it with to the Workshop on Thursday night and share it with council, I am
okay with that.
Randy Distad, CPRP
Parks and Recreation Director
City of Farmington
phone: (651) 463-1851 fax: (651) 463-2591
A parks and recreation director who likes to work at play and play at work!
-----Original Message-----
From: Jkingslapshot@aol.com [mailto:Jkingslapshot@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 4:29 PM
To: Randy Distad
Subject: Response
Hello Randy.
Sorry it has taken a while to get back to you. We are in the midst of spring break and I took a few days for family
time. Thank you for the update on the committee's progress. I can begin working on the proforma this week.
There is some information I will need from you to proceed. Perhaps it would be best if we could schedule a time to
talk this week. I am open the rest of the week so I can work around your availability. I also want to visit with you
regarding the multipurpose room, partnership issues and recommendations on how to proceed.
April 13th works for my schedule to present the operations proforma to the committee. I think the formal
presentation to Council on the 18th might be pushing things a bit, especially if we make any revisions as a result
of the April 13th presentation. I will also need time to draft an executive summary and assemble the final report. I
would like to share a final draft review copy for you and staff before we assemble the final report. The May date to
present to Council sounds more realistic to me.
Please let me know when you are available so we can talk. Thanks Randy
3/23/2005
DAKOTA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACnON
Adoption Of County Principles Regarding Minnesota "Clean Water Legacy Act" Proposed Legislation
Meeting Date:
Item Type:
Division:
Department:
Contact:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
3/22/05
Regular-Action
PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT
Administration
John Jaschke Telephone: 952-891-7011
John Jaschke
AFP Committee N/A
FiscallFTE Impact:
o None
o Amount included in current budget
o Budget amendment requested
o FTE included in current complement
o New FTE(s) requested-N/A
IZI Other
PURPOSE/ACTION REQUESTED
. Adoption of principles regarding proposed legislation for a Minnesota "Clean Water Legacy Act."
SUMMARY
The state agencies responsible for agriculture, the environment and natural resource and interest group
stakeholders, known collectively as the "G-16", have refined a concept that was initially developed in 2003 to
assess an annual tax to address the State's Impaired Waters. On January 11, 2005, representatives from the "G-
16" presented conceptual plans to the Physical Development Committee. The proposed state legislation, now
referred to as the "Clean Water Legacy Acf', provides for a tax collected locally from all wastewater users via
property tax statements, sent to a dedicated State fund and then redistributed to agencies, local governments, and
others for assessment, preventative action, and remediation of the State's Impaired Waters. The impetus for the
initiative is that if Minnesota does not address its Impaired Waters, governments and businesses could be subject
to lawsuits under the Federal Clean Water Act and development could be inhibited because permits and other
regulatory controls could limit or preclude discharges to these polluted waters. A map of Impaired Waters in
Dakota County is found at Attachment A.
Federal Clean Water Act Reauirements
The Federal Clean Water Act requires states to adopt water quality standards. These standards define how much
of a pollutant can be in a surface water while still allowing it to meet its designated uses, such as for drinking water,
fishing, swimming, irrigation or industrial purposes. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) are the focus of a newly
invigorated watershed approach to develop written plans, analysis, and actions for Impaired Waters to ensure that
the water quality standards will be attained and maintained.
Proposed Legislation
An annual tax of $36 per year would be charged to households served by either a municipal sewage treatment
works or individual sewage treatment system. A tax of $120-$600 per year would be charged to non-residential
facilities and wastewater collection facilities that serve multiple residences and businesses. Up to five percent may
be retained by the collecting entity for administrative costs. The proponents of this legislative initiative indicate
Statewide revenues in the range of $75-$100 million per year will be generated to fund a dedicated water protection
account. The legislation also includes establishment of an advisory "Clean Water Council" to oversee and direct
implementation but many details are not yet developed, resulting in a number of questions regarding collection
mechanisms, redistribution formulas and responsibilities for implementation. The legislation also contains several
policy components to establish processes for completing TMDL plans. The proposed legislation is listed in
Attachment B.
Countv Oraanization Positions
AMC's 2005 Legislative Policy (Attachment C) supports initiatives to restore Minnesota's Impaired Waters that
primarily rely on voluntary efforts, build upon existing programs, provide significant opportunities for local
governments and citizens to participate in decision-making processes, and is funded through federal and state
revenue sources that are not collected through the property tax system. The recently adopted MICA position is
listed as Attachment D. The Minnesota River Board resolution is listed in Attachment E.
EXPLANATION OF FISCAUFTE IMPACT
None from this item. The Treasurer-Auditor's Office estimates that an annual $36 tax on residential properties and
$150 tax on non-residential properties in Dakota County would generate approximately $5.0 million each year. The
costs of tax collection are reimbursable up to 5% of the total collected. Future County or other local government
matching obligations to receive the redistributed tax revenues or to comply with potential additional Impaired
Waters standards are unknown.
3/23/2005 11: 15 AM Page 1
c:\documents and settings\durbia\local settings\temporary internet files\olk80\jj3-22-2005impaired waters.doc
Agenda Page No.
Supporting Documents:
Attachment A: Map of Dakota County Impaired Waters
Attachment B: Clean Water Legacy Act Legislation
Attachment C: AMC Policy Position
Attachment 0: MICA Policy Position
Attachment E: Minnesota River Board Resolution
Previous Board Action(s):
RESOLUTION
Adoption Of County Principles Regarding Minnesota "Clean Water Legacy Act" Proposed Legislation
WHEREAS, Dakota County has made considerable investments in research, education and capital projects to
restore, protect, enjoy and utilize its water resources; and
WHEREAS, Dakota County acknowledges and appreciates the prior work of the "G-16" members to assess
requirements and risks, evaluate alternatives and forward recommendations in a consensus manner; and
WHEREAS, Dakota County is committed to engaging with local and regional governments within its jurisdiction, its
Legislative representatives and the Legislature's committees, the Governor's office and state agencies, its affiliate
organizations (including the Association of Minnesota Counties;the Metropolitan Inter-County Association and the
Minnesota River Board), and with other stakeholders party to the proposed Minnesota "Clean Water Legacy Acf'
legislation, to establish a plan with implementation means and measures to achieve the goal of restoring the state's
and Dakota County's impaired waters.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Dakota County Board of Commissioners believes that
additional assessment, planning and public participation are needed before funding a large scale
restoration of impaired waters. A comprehensive technical and fiscal assessment of the state's impaired waters
issues should be completed that includes:
1. A prioritization schedule for completing assessments and commencing restoration
2. Projections for future fiscal needs after technical assessments are complete
3. Means and measures to track progress toward the goal of restoring impaired waters
4. A comprehensive evaluation of all potential funding mechanisms
5. Broad opportunities for public input, review and comment
;and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Dakota County Board of Commissioners urges the legislature to address
the following points in the proposed Minnesota "Clean Water Legacy Acf' legislation:
· The administrative infrastructure and governance must be clearly defined and efficient. Any newly
created governance organization (Le., the "clean water council") must reflect the significant roles and
responsibilities assigned to counties in the proposed legislation (e.g., additional county representation on
the "clean water council", as appointed by the respective organizations). As an advisory body to the
Governor and the legislature, the "clean water council" would benefit from greater public representation and
a refocused state agency role as staff advisors to the council rather than as members of the council.
Finally, opportunities for reengineering existing state water-funding programs to improve their focus,
relevance, coordination, and efficiency with the goals of the proposed legislation should be enacted prior to
or commensurate with creation of a new governance body.
· A phased implementation plan should be employed so that technical assessment in priority areas is
completed prior to large-scale investments in restoration efforts. Because only 14% of lakes and 8% of
rivers in the state have been assessed, large-scale restoration efforts should be phased in after the
assessments are completed so that the restoration funds are expended efficiently and effectively.
Administrator's Comments:
o Recommend Action
o Do Not Recommend Action
o Reviewed-No Recommendation
o Reviewed-Information Only
o Submitted at Commissioner Request
Reviewed by (if required):
o County Attorney's Office
o financial Services
o Risk Management
o Employee Relations
o Information Technology
o
County Administrator
3/23/2005 11: 15 AM Page 2
c:\documents and settings\durbia\local settings\temporary internet files\olk80\jj3-22-2005impaired waters.doc
Agenda Page No.
. The scale at which watershed restorations/improvements will be assessed and implemented must
be defined in order to achieve effective implementation. Watershed delineations for assessment work,
TMDL plans, and load allocations are needed so that expectations and relationships between large
regional or basin-scale TMDL projects and local sub-watershed prioritization, funding and regulatory
actions to implement them are clear.
. Conservation incentives and education should be included in the proposed legislation to reduce
actions that are impairing the state's lakes and rivers and assure preservation of those that are not
impaired. Providing financial incentives and education opportunities that promote conservation practices to
reduce pollutant loadings should be primary elements of a program that seeks to change behaviors.
. The financing mechanism needs to be equitable, efficient and proportional, and thus:
In concert with the goal of promoting incentives for preventing polluting activities, taxes imposed should
have a relationship to water use or discharges.
Double or triple taxation in jurisdictions where city, regional wastewater and watershed programs are
already in place must be avoided.
The proposal to use the local property tax system to collect revenues to be sent to the state, where
decisions will be made to send back a portion of the funds to the local government is not efficient and
should be reconsidered.
In general, greater local control over spending priorities should be incorporated into the legislation.
The start-up and ongoing administrative costs to local government for actions required by the
legislation should be provided for in the legislation.
There needs to be a geographic relationship between the revenue collected from residents and
businesses and where it is spent.
Local governments responsible for collecting the funds need to retain a share of the funds collected to
implement plans approved pursuant to the legislation proposed.
Local governments that have previously invested in water protection efforts will have equal access to
the new fee revenues.
3/23/2005 11: 15 AM Page 3
c:\documents and settings\durbia\local settings\temporary internet files\olk80\jj3-22-2005impaired waters.doc
Agenda Page No.
ATTACHMENT A
Dakota County
Impaired Waters
2004
. Lee
.,-; "
Orchard
-' -,.-.,~->--
.,'(' ,-' ~'-~.
. '~~'. r, ,) _,._r'
-) ./ ~--,J "._
J='~ itrloh ---
Impaired Streams
Affected Use
----- Aquatic Life
----- Aquatic Recreation
Aquatic Life and Recreation
Aquatic Life and Consumption
-- Aquatic Life. Recreation. Consumption
Impaired Lakes
Affected Use
~ Aquatic: Recreation
~ Aquatic Consumption
~ Aquatic Recreation and Consumption
I'
~. f
,\.,
"'i~~"
.'
f.-. --
j \
.-'" _,,;", :;~'"'i
_/_, -
. ", ". ." ~..
, :-'-'1 ~--;;....,:l -'..-
,. . -.: I
source: Minnesota peA
htlp:/lwww.pca.state.mn.ustwalerItmdUmaps
Note: The 2004 Impaired Waters list, known as the 303(d) list and approved by the U.S. EPA on May 13, 2004, is
based on violations of water quality standards and is organized by river basin on the MPCA web site at:
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/tmdl/index.html. The list is based on sampling data from only 14% of Minnesota's
lakes and 8% of Minnesota's rivers and streams. In past assessments 37% of lakes and 40% of rivers and streams
have been designated as impaired.
3/23/2005 11: 15 AM Page 4
c:\documents and settings\durbia\local settings\temporary internet files\olk80\jj3-22-2005impaired waters.doc
Agenda Page No.
ATTACHMENT C
ASSOCIATION OF
~
MINNESOTA COUNTIES
Clean Water Le2acv Act
The Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC) supports the objectives of the Clean Water
Legacy Act and recognizes that initiatives must to be taken in order to identify impaired waters
and restore and protect our state's water resources. County officials understand that the State of
Minnesota must develop a plan to address the Federal Clean Water Act mandate. County
officials are well aware of the negative impacts on economic development that could occur in
cities and counties throughout the state ifproper plans are not in place.
AMC encouratles the Letlislature to review other methods for collectintl and
distributintl the funds to support the obiectives of the Clean Water Act.
Revenue Questions and Concerns:
1. The record keeping for this tax could place an administrative burden on counties.
Cities and counties will retain five percent of the amount collected or about four
million dollars. This is not likely to cover the full cost of the collection process.
2. Who is responsible for paying the tax? Is the property owner responsible for payment
or rather, is it the person living on and using the property?
3. Who is responsible for tax collection enforcement? If residents do not pay the tax,
what collection tools are counties granted? Would counties be responsible for
remitting uncollected taxes to the state?
4. Water usage information is not currently available as part ofnonnal county land
records data. This information will need to be collected from businesses to determine
what they pay on the tiered payment scale. Additionally, the number of businesses
located in a building will need to be determined
5. Some counties do not have records of the number of units within each multi-family
residence. In a multi-tenant facility with a single hook-up, the questions are: who
pays what, and how much will they pay?
6. The bill makes provisions for low-income residents. Counties do not maintain
infonnation regarding income status to determine exemption that can easily be tied to
the property tax system. AMC suggests that if counties are to collect this tax under
the mechanisms provided in the bill, the state should develop a refund program for
qualified low-income residents.
7. What method is recommended for the collection of from tax-exempt properties (e.g.,
churches, schools, parks) if they are not connected to an organized wastewater treatment
system? Are these entities intended to be taxed?
3/23/2005 11:15AM Page21
c:\documents and settings\durbia\local settings\temporary internet files\olk80\jj3-22-2005impaired waters.doc
Agenda Page No.
Expenditure Questions and Concerns:
1. Will the collected dollars be used as a way to supplement programs that received
budget cuts either this year or in previous years?
2. Will the entire amount of money collected from this tax go for its intended purposes?
3. Is there a breakdown available from agencies detailing what measurable results they
wish to achieve from this program?
4. Many water impairments are created by land use practices within local watersheds,
how will this program be structured to reflect and assure local responsibility and
accountability?
5. Is there a final breakdown of the amount of dollars that will come back to each county
through grants and loans, water restoration projects or other types of assistance?
6. The groundwork for the distribution of the funds has not specifically been laid out.
How will local units of government, watershed districts or other groups take
advantage of incentives or disincentives to participate in clean water programs or
opportunities.
7. What criteria will be used to determine when a third party TMDL is considered? Will
the local governments, affected landowners and business owners be consulted before
the decision is made? Will the affected entities have input in the selection of the third
parties?
Other Questions and Concerns:
I. What is the role of the Clean Water Council? The bill lays out the Council's advisory
role but what plans are in place to ensure that the Governor or the agencies follow
recommendations made by the council?
2. If enacted, what role will the legislature (or its commissions) have in determining the
distribution of tax revenue?
3. What legal provisions will be created to assure that the dedicated clean water funding
cannot be redirected by future governors or legislatures for use of other purposes?
4. Will the tax revenues be redistributed through existing multi-agency water
management grant programs, or will a new granting process be created? This question
may be important to consider in relation to the proposed Department of Environmental
Protection.
5. Will there be a greater emphasis on a watershed approach to water management if this
new tax revenue is realized?
3/23/2005 11: 15 AM Page 22
c:\documents and settings\durbia\local settings\temporary internet files\olk80\ij3-22-2005impaired waters. doc
Agenda Page No.
ATTACHMENT 0
MICA RESOLUTION TO
HF 826, "Clean Water Legacy Act"
Adopted at March 9, 2005, Board Meeting
The MICA Board expresses its concern about the manner in which the revenues are to fund the Clean
Water Legacy Act. Those concerns include:
1) Where the monies are raised and where they are spent,
2) The absence of any nexus between those contributing to pollution and those who are paying for the
clean-up,
3) The absence of any incentives and directives to punish polluters and reward those who take action
to reduce or eliminate pollution.
The MICA Board is further concerned that the administrative structure for implementing the Ace in
duplicative and overly bureaucratic and more efficient manners of administering the Act must be put into effect.
The MICA Board believes the State of Minnesota has primary responsibility for funding the Act and that
state administered and collected revenue ought to be the preferable funding source.
MICA Board of Directors
9 March 2005
3/23/2005 11: 15 AM Page 23
c:\documents and settings\durbia\local settings\temporary internet files\olk80\jj3-22-2005impaired waters.doc
Agenda Page No.
ATTACHMENT E
~llinnesota River Board
'R:E.SOr.'l1TION :r01t S'UPP01tTINf,i
T:J-f 'E. C r. 'E. .Jl N 11'.Jl T'E.1t 'U S.Jl f,i 'E. :r'E. 'E.
Resolution No. 012405: 2
James lsche
Chairperson
Carver County
13080 County Rd 52
~onvood,~ 55368
952-466-5851
'W3f'E.~, the federal Clean Water Act requires states to identify and list surlace
Vl.'aters failing to meet applicable water Clllality standards, evaluate impaired waters to
detennine sources of pollution and the amount of reduction needed to restore the waters,
and make reasonable progress in cleaning up the waters; and
'W3f'E.~, the mandate is under-funded and money is needed to implement
restoration activities as well as preventative measures, and
'W.1l'E.~, on January 2003 Governor Pawlenty presented his Clean Water Vision
and charged the Clean Water Cabinet to implement a stakeholder process to develop a
strategy to address impaired waters, and
Charles Guggisberg
Interim First Vice-Olair
24274 Bro\\1n Co. Rei II
~ew DIm, ~ 56073-9705
507-354-5797
'W.1l'E.~, there is an estimated $270 million needed annually, on a long-term basis,
to address impaired waters, over and above the extensive projects already implemented by
some communities and watersheds, and
William Stangler
Second Vice-Chair
Le Sueur County
31925 Cedar Lane
St. Peter, MN 56082
507-931-1219
'W.1l'E.~, there is a proposal to place a fee of$3.00 per month on every household
in Minnesota 'with multi-unit housing and conunercial properties contribute per Equivalent
Dwelling to collect an estimated S80 million per year, and
T'3f'E.'R.'EYO'R.:E., 11'E. IT' 'R.'ESo.r:vE.'D, that the Minnesota River Board is being
proactive in supporting the concept and collection of the State ofMinnesora Clean Water
fee on a local level for inlproved water quality, and
'B'E. IT' yeJ'R.T'.1l'E.'R. 'R.'ESOr.'V'E'D, that the Minnesota River Board supports the
colle.ction of the State of Minnesota Clean Water fee through existing infrastrncture that is
the most efficient. and
Judy Hanson
Treasurer
~icollet County
39384 403rd Avenue
St. Peter, MN 56082
507-246-5388
'B'E. IT' yeJ'R.T'3fTR. 'R:E.SOr.'V'E'D, that the locally collected State of Minnesota
Clean Water fee will be distributed from the local level using current infrastructure, COWIty
or watershed-based, and
Harold Solem
Secretary
Lac qui Parle County
2225 - 361" Avenue
~on~~~deo,~ 56265
320-769-2063
11'E. I'I' yeJ'R.T'.1lTR. 'R:E.SOr.'V'E'D. that a to-he-determined percentage of the
collected State of Minnesota Clean Water fee stay \vithin the county or watershed to be
used according local TMDL plans approved by MPCA. and
'B'E. I'I' :f'U'R.T':J-{TR, 'R:E.SOr."V'E'D, that a to-be-determined percentage of the
collected State of Minnesota Clean Water fee will be allocated to the State ofMinnesora
Clean Water Protection Account for the pw:pose of funding BMP loans. ISTS revolving
loans, WIF /low interest public infrastructure, watershed support and on-going technical
support for research/data collection. and
Hadan ~Iads(>n
Ex-Officio
Kandiyohi COlmty
15263 -12OthAvenue, SE
Lake Lillian. MN 56253
320-664-4880
'B'E. IT' yeJ'R.T'3fTR. 'R:E.SOr.'V'E'D, that a to-be-determined percentage of the
collected State ofMitmesota Clean Water fee be allocated on a basin-wide scope, with
actions prioritized by the watersheds in each basin, and
'E'E. I'I' yeJ'R.T'3fTR. 'R:E.SOr."V'E1J, that the Minnesota River Board is \,,-i11ing to work
with the Minnesota River Basin Watershed groups, the State of Minnesota, and other
counties/watershed basins to determine collection and disbursement of the water usage fee.
Diane K Oneho
Director
507327-4053
diane.ovrebo@mmiu,edu
~ ~. .{1.-d.t.-
01124/05
Date
"Coordinating the Clean rIp oj the }v.finnesota Rn'er Basin"
3/23/2005 11: 15 AM Page 24
c:\documents and settings\durbia\local settings\temporary internet files\olk80\jj3-22-2005impaired waters.doc
Agenda Page No.