Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.04.23 Work Session Packet AGENDA Council Work Session Meeting 5:00 PM - Monday, December 4, 2023 Farmington City Hall, Conf Room 170 Page 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE AGENDA 3. DISCUSSION ITEMS 3.1. Discussion Regarding Proposed Development and Existing Special Assessments Discuss the City's willingness to utilize resources to support a proposed market-rate multi-family housing development. Agenda Item: Discussion Regarding Proposed Development and Existing Special Assessments - Pdf 2 - 7 3.2. Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Management Plan - Update Discussion only EAB Tree Injections 23-328 RTC Agenda Item: Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Management Plan - Update - Pdf 8 - 33 3.3. Speed Limit Background Discussion only Agenda Item: Speed Limit Background - Pdf 34 - 130 4. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE UPDATE 5. CITY ADMINISTRATOR UPDATE 6. ADJOURN Page 1 of 130 COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Deanna Kuennen, Community Dev Director Department: Community Development Subject: Discussion Regarding Proposed Development and Existing Special Assessments Meeting: Work Session - Dec 04 2023 INTRODUCTION: In June of this year, Staff attended the Minnesota Real Estate Journal Apartment Summit, where they met Vishal Dutt, Development Partner with Yellow Tree - a Minneapolis-based commercial real estate development and construction firm. Since then, Staff has been working with Mr. Dutt (the Developer) to identify a site in Farmington for the construction of a market rate apartment project. The developer has secured a site and is now seeking assistance from the City of Farmington to advance the project. DISCUSSION: After meeting with the Farmington Team in June, Mr. Dutt has been diligently working to secure a 3- acre site in Farmington for the construction of an approximate 115-unit apartment development. Mr. Dutt has successfully negotiated a purchase agreement for a 3-acre portion of the 15-acre "Hy-Vee" property (PID 148260000031) show below. The site, once subdivided, would house a market-rate apartment The amenities. outdoor other and parking, surface and covered with development proposed project is estimated to be $28 million - which includes land acquisition, hard construction costs and soft costs (architecture, engineering, finance, etc.). In order for the project to move forward, the developer is seeking financial assistance from the City - in the form of forgiveness of the special assessment that attached to the property and some form of tax incentive (tax abatement). These resources are necessary for the project to be financially feasible. The property currently is paying on a 15-year special assessment, that was previously deferred. Calendar year 2023 is Year 2 of the assessment payments, with a total approximate payoff of $1,722,595 (total parcel), at a per acre rate of $116,549. Based on these numbers - the special assessment is an impediment to the project as it adds an additional estimated $350,000 to the overall development costs for the 3-acre development. Before spending additional dollars on engineering, architecture, and design - the developer is seeking input regarding the City Council's appetite to waive the special assessment on the 3-acre portion of the overall parcel (contingent to the investment/development moving forward) and also if the City Council is open to exploring the use of tax abatement as a means to reduce the financial gap/feasibility in order to advance the project. Based on feedback from the City Council, the developer will decide whether to continue pursuing the project at this location. If there is positive feedback and a willingness to support utilizing such resources to advance the development, the next steps will include engaging with the City's financial consultant to work with the developer in preparing a more in-depth financial analysis and tax incentive recommendation which would come back at a future meeting. Page 2 of 130 Vishal Dutt will attend the meeting representing the development team. He will provide an introduction of who he is, information about the Yellow Tree development team and their experience, why Farmington, and an overview of the proposed project. www.yellowtreecorp.com www.avicdevelopment.com BUDGET IMPACT: Not applicable ACTION REQUESTED: Discuss the City's willingness to utilize resources to support a proposed market-rate multi-family housing development. ATTACHMENTS: Yellow Tree Profile and Owner Bio. Yellow Tree Project List Yellow Tree Awards-Publications Page 3 of 130 Yellow Tree is an award-winning Minneapolis-based real estate development, construction, and property management firm, specializing in the revitalization of underutilized urban properties. With over 30 buildings and 2,300 units completed since 2018, our experienced team thrives on community-focused projects, and has invested over $504 million in the twin cities market. Navigating complex urban builds is our forte. As owner, developer, manager, and builder, we guide you from project inception to occupancy, offering our unique real estate expertise. We partner with like-minded investors to develop and manage a diverse $237 million portfolio of commercial and residential properties, all with emphasis on long-term profitability. Our experienced, agile leadership team has over 100 years of combined experience, adept at managing projects of any scale. We collaborate with top architects, engineers, and subcontractors to ensure quality-focused, visually captivating commercial builds and renovations. Our specialized design-build process offers a single point of contact, which streamlines efficiency and reduces fees, resulting in faster delivery and maximized project value. Our full-service property management department oversees 26 properties encompassing a $330 million portfolio of housing across the Twin Cities metro area, from homes to large developments. Our reputation rests on tailored, responsive service delivered by our dedicated property managers and in-house maintenance techs, available 24/7, that are committed to accelerating your community’s occupancy and profitability. Bryan Walters, Co-Founder and Operations Management Bryan Walters is the Co-Founder of Yellow Tree with 15 years of experience in operations management and executive oversight of the company’s development, construction and property management divisions. He is responsible for a many aspects of Yellow Tree’s day-to-day operations along with supporting the development team on everything from project design and technology infusion, to community engagement and investor relations. Bryan’s collaboration across the divisions helps provide the seamless transition from project conception to delivery and operation of every asset. He takes pride in solving problems and removing barriers for the team to allow everyone to focus on what they do best. Bryan is a member of the National Association of Realtors and the Minneapolis Association of Realtors. 1834 East 38th Street • Minneapolis, MN • 55407 Page 4 of 130 Robb Lubenow, Co-Founder and Development Lead Robb Lubenow is the Co-Founder of Yellow Tree with over 15 years of development and investment experience and 20 years of commercial construction experience. Robb focuses on strategic planning, real estate investment strategies and capital formation. Day to day development duties include land acquisition, community engagement, project entitlements, building design, asset formation, and sourcing debit and equity. Robb is also involved in executive oversight of construction and property management services. This fully integrated approach ensures project success from opportunity generation thru stabilization and asset management. Kirk Pennings, President of Construction Services Kirk Pennings is the President and co-founder of Yellow Tree Construction Services. With over 20 years of experience in the construction industry serving in leadership positions at highly regulatable companies such as Opus Group and Target Corporation. In 2017, Kirk co-founded Yellow Tree Construction Services (YTCS) with Robb Lubenow and Bryan Walters. YTCS operates as a general contracting firm for Yellow Tree developments and partners with similar upstart development groups on third-party contracts. Kirk oversees project management, field staff, client acquisition, and preconstruction efforts. Don Brown, President of Property Management Services Don Brown joined Yellow Tree in 2019 after building the foundations as the Vice President of Residential Management for Doran Companies, and provides senior leadership, asset management and operational oversight for Yellow Tree’s portfolio of properties. His tenure in the industry spans more than 20 years and his experience includes leasing, management and operations for more than 6,000 rental units across all asset classes. He is a member of the Minnesota Multi-Housing Association, a licensed Real Estate Broker and a proud Veteran of the United States Navy. Vishal Dutt, Development Partner Vishal Dutt joined the Yellow Tree team in 2023 as Development Partner, taking a key role in shaping and implementing our development business strategy. His responsibilities include identifying new investment prospects and sourcing project debit and equity. For more than twenty years, Vishal has specialized in ensuring financial and operational diligence in all aspects of real estate development, including capital and operating budgets, financial affairs, and capital stack structuring. His expertise lies in commercial real estate finance and structuring deals for success. 1834 East 38th Street • Minneapolis, MN • 55407 Page 5 of 130 New Developments Units Year The Central* 49 2018 The Whit* 74 2018 Jax* 65 2019 Nico East* 147 2019 MN46 54 2020 Overland* 63 2020 Odie* 67 2020 29 Bryant* 91 2020 Kolo 41 2020 Lumos* 74 2021 Nox* 84 2021 Alexander* 77 2021 Sawyer 49 2021 Verso 29 2021 Aubrey 47 2022 Cityline 102 2022 Deco265 100 2022 Midline* 156 2022 Nico West* 126 2022 The Abbey* 126 2022 Marshall St Townhomes 7 2022 Wakpada 126 2022 Volo at TexaTonka 111 2023 1000 Main St 49 2023 Huck 83 2023 Juliette* 113 2023 Akin 204 2023 *Yellow Tree Developments Total: 2314 Remodels Year The Arrive Clubhouse 2017 Jackalope Tattoo 2018 Blair Apartment Common Areas 2018 FIT (Grand St Commons) 2018 Grizzly's Pizza 2019 Riverside Adult Day Center 2019 Colonial Villa Clubhouse Addition 2020 1836 Daycare 2021 Dela Beauty Supply 2021 Dela’s Beauty Supply Expansion 2022 The Hair Creative 2022 Thompson Exteriors Office 2023 Jackalope Tattoo Expansion 2023 Avalon Cove Clubhouse 2023 Sunset Trail Clubhouse 2023 Page 6 of 130 Awards CoStar’s 2023 Impact Award; The Abbey Finance & Commerce Top Projects of 2022: The Abbey CoStar’s 2022 Multifamily Development of the Year; The Abbey 2023 Minneapolis Preservation Award; The Abbey MADACS 2022 YTPM – Top Maintenance Supervisor MADACS 2021 YTCS – Best Innovation Top 2022 Projects; Wakpada Apartments Top 2020 Projects; Kolo Apartments Real Estate Journal Multifamily Finalist - Kolo Real Estate Journal Multifamily Finalist - MN46 Real Estate Journal Multifamily Finalist - Odie Publications Top Projects of 2022 Notable Projects Finished in 2022 The POWER 30: Developers 2022, New Housing Pitched near 50th & France, The POWER 30: Developers 2021, Historic Mansion at Project’s Core, YT Acquires Land for Uptown Apartments, Paster, Yellow Tree Team Up, Developer Say Eased Parking Rules Foster Building Boom, Q&A: Yellow Tree Co-Found Robb Lubenow envisions a smaller apartment, Developer Yellow Tree Takes Root Near Blue Line, Here’s the Macro View on Micro Apartment Trend, Yellow Tree sells vintage apartments After Major Rehab, Four More Apartment Projects Pitched for Minneapolis, Page 7 of 130 430 Third Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.280.6800 www.farmingtonmn.gov March 28, 2023 Re: EAB Treatment Program Dear Contractor: Notice is hereby given that proposals will be considered by the City of Farmington to supplement our 2023 Emerald Ash Borer Trunk Injection Treatment Program. It is the intention of the city to treat up to 1,200 additional ash trees this growing season to slow the mortality of ash trees on public lands. Due to the progression of EAB in the community, the number of treatable ash trees may be less than 1,200. The intention is to put more ash that are treatable, over twelve (12) inches in DBH and in good or fair condition under protection so that the city can make progress on removing poor condition, heavily infested, and smaller ash trees. The Contractor will also make a treatment program available to residents for treatment of trees on private property, in which they will work directly with the resident. The scope of service details the requirements of each program. All submissions must comply with the attached scope of work. Proposals shall include: 1. Resumes/lists of qualifications (Attachment 1) 2. Ash Tree Injection Quote Sheet for Municipal Program (Attachment 2) 3. Ash Tree Injection Quote Sheet for Homeowner Program (Attachment 3) Questions about the proposal, selection, reporting requirements or approvals should be directed to: Edward Rutledge Natural Resource Specialist (651) 280-6842 email at: erutledge@farmingtonmn.gov Proposals must be submitted by email no later than Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 12:00 noon to: Edward Rutledge Natural Resource Specialist erutledge@farmingtonmn.gov A contractor will be selected based on an evaluation of quality, experience, price and other factors deemed to be in that city’s best interest. The city reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, request additional information and clarifications, waive technicalities, and to select a contractor based upon the best interests of that city. The city is not obligated to award the contract to lowest responsible proposer. No proposal may be withdrawn for a period of sixty days after the due date. Page 8 of 130 The contract will be in the form attached. The city reserves the right to negotiate all terms and conditions, including specifications, of the contract. The City is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statute Chapter 13, and all information submitted is public unless classified by statute, or temporary classification or federal law as nonpublic or protected nonpublic, or with respect to data on individuals, as private or confidential. Sincerely, City of Farmington Edward Rutledge Natural Resource Specialist Enclosures: Specification and Scope of Service, including attachments Page 9 of 130 SPECIFICATIONS AND SCOPE OF SERVICE TREE INJECTION FOR EMERALD ASH BORER CITY OF FARMINGTON The city of Farmington is inviting proposals from professional tree service contractors to provide supplemental tree injection services of ash trees within the city for 2023. Work Description: The work shall include the treatment of ash trees by the means of trunk injections to help control the spread of Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) within park and city limits. The work includes two separate programs; treatment of trees on city owned property including right-of-way (ROW) contracted with the city (the “Municipal Program”); and treatment of trees on private property contracted directly with the property owner (the “Homeowner Program”). The ash tree injections in the Municipal Program can be reasonably estimated, but the trees in the Homeowner Program are owned by the underlying property owner and there is no guarantee of participation in the program. Municipal Program: The work shall include the treatment of up to approximately 1,200 ash trees between June 1, 2023, and September 30, 2023; or before fall leaf color, whichever occurs sooner. The ash trees to be treated will be in addition to the ash trees we currently have under our treatment program. The goal is to treat more ash trees in the public ROW and parks to slow the mortality of ash trees while we remove heavily infested, poor condition, and smaller ash trees. The intention is to treat up to 1,200 trees, but given the progression of EAB this number may be less. The city reserves the right to increase or decrease quantities including reserving the right to decide not to treat any under the contract. A boulevard ash tree survey was completed in 2016 and will be provided to the contractor to identify ash trees that may have the potential to be treated. Trees that were rated in condition of fair or good and nine (9) inches or greater in DBH at time of recording in 2016 will be assessed by the contractor for treatment. Trees that were rated as poor and are less than nine (9) inches in DBH from the 2016 survey will not be considered for treatment. There may be instances when a tree is not in suitable health or condition to recommend treatment and will be skipped. All skipped trees will have addresses recorded and reported to the city for removal. All trees that are to be treated are within public ROW or on city owned property. The contractor will provide the appropriate injection equipment, EAB insecticides and trained personnel. The city will provide maps of the tree injection locations and locations of trees that are currently under protection or already scheduled for treatment this season. Homeowner Program: The homeowner will contact the contractor directly to initiate an inspection, receive a quote, provide approval, and enter into a contract. Prior to recommending treatment, all proposed ash trees shall be inspected by a qualified individual employed by the contractor. There may be instances when a tree is not in suitable health or condition to recommend treatment, and the contractor shall have an individual experienced in communicating tree information to the general public to explain such instances. The person assigned to inspect the trees shall, at the very minimum, be a Certified Minnesota Tree Inspector, or have a degree in forestry, or be an ISA Certified Arborist. The individual shall be qualified to diagnose EAB and have experience evaluating tree condition. Additionally, the individual shall be able to explain the benefits and risks of all ash protection options, with regard to pollinators, water quality, human health, and tree health and condition. All ash injections shall be completed between June 1, 2023, and September 30, 2023; or before fall leaf color, whichever occurs sooner. All invoices will be remitted directly to the homeowner. The city will have no responsibility for tree injections completed as part of the homeowner program. The company will assist in formulating a marketing and educational plan and materials in order to promote the program to the public. Page 10 of 130 The following requirements apply to both the Municipal and Homeowner Program and all public and private trees inspected and treated unless specifically stated otherwise: Equipment and Chemicals: The pesticide used in the treatment of ash trees shall be a micro-encapsulated liquid formulation of emamectin benzoate (known by the brand name TREE-age) or an approved alternative. The application method shall only be by trunk injection (injection placed into the root flare or within 12-inches of the soil) and shall follow the manufacturer’s recommended rate calculations and guidelines at the medium rate for all size trees. A Material Data Safety Sheet shall be on file with the city prior to treatment within the city. Substitutions: Contractor shall obtain written approval from the city in advance of the proposal submittal for the use of any pesticides or application equipment other than the items listed above. Inventory: All injected trees (both public and private) shall be inventoried with GPS (+-2 m accuracy or better in order to identify each tree individually) and treatment shall be tracked in GIS. Skipped trees that were deemed untreatable will be recorded and address and location reported to the city for removal. Tree point locations and treatment data will be represented by a point feature class within a shapefile or geodatabase (*.gdb or *.mdb) compatible with ESRI’s ArcGIS Pro version 3.0 or later. Point feature attributes shall include attributes matching the schema of the Tree Feature Class provided in Attachment 4 in addition to any attributes recorded for the treatment program. All GPS and GIS information collected shall be provided to the city at the end of each treatment season. Qualifications: The contractor shall be properly insured with at least three (3) years of experience performing plant health care or injection treatments. There shall be at least one ISA certified arborist available to supervise the program and the application crew(s). All members of the application crew shall be licensed MN Commercial Pesticide Applicators. The contractor shall have at least one person available to GPS each tree injected. Each contractor shall provide a list of three (3) references. Contract: The contract form is attached. Supervision: The contractor shall have a competent superintendent who is an ISA certified arborist supervising all application crews and will work directly with the Natural Resource Specialist, or the homeowner if part of the Homeowner Program. The superintendent shall be authorized by the contractor to accept and act upon all directives issued by the respective city or by the homeowner if part of the Homeowner Program. The contractor shall also provide adequate and qualified staff to properly coordinate and expedite work under this agreement. The contractor shall ensure that appropriate staff is certified as Tree Inspectors and/or holds a Pesticide Applicators License from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Resumes/lists of qualifications shall be included in the proposal. Work Progress: Contractor shall make every effort each working day to ensure that the work progresses without delay including: contacting residents, posting necessary signage and obtaining any authorizations. The contractor will provide a written description of work that has been completed at each work site to the respective city and to the homeowner if part of the Homeowner Program. This will include the DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of the tree, amount of chemical used, and the address and GPS (ESRI’s ArcGIS or compatible) points of the tree. The contractor will leave the site in the same condition they found it. Hours of Work: No power equipment shall be run prior to 7:00 A.M. or after 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. No work is to be performed on Saturdays, Sundays or City Holidays. City staff hours are from 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. Guarantee and Warranty: The contractor shall provide a warranty or guaranty to the city and to each homeowner that is part of the Homeowner Program. The contractor shall provide a two (2) year warranty or guaranty in a clear written form including applicable criteria and eligibility requirements. If a healthy injected tree dies of EAB within the Page 11 of 130 warranty or guarantee period the contractor shall uphold the warranty or guaranty and refund the city or homeowner the cost of the recent treatment. Attachments: Attachment 1 - List of Qualifications Attachment 2 - Ash Tree Injection Quote Sheet for Municipal Program Attachment 3 - Ash Tree Injection Quote Sheet for Homeowner Program Attachment 4 - GIS Point Feature Attributes Attachment 5 – Standardized Contract Page 12 of 130 ATTACHMENT 1 QUALIFICATIONS EAB INJECTION SERVICES All Proposals must attach the Qualifications, Municipal Program Quote, and Homeowner Program Quote forms and all lines must be filled out completely or the proposal may be rejected. COMPANY ADDRESS TELEPHONE EMAIL REPRESENTATIVE’S NAME (print) SIGNATURE DATE If more room is needed, please attach additional sheets to the packet. 1. List number of years in business (3 years minimum): ___________________________ 2. List the number of years of experience in performing plant health care or injection treatments: ____________________ 3. List of references (3 references minimum) Business/Community Name Contact Name Phone Number Last Work Date 4. List names of person(s) who will supervise this contract, number of years of experience, and ISA Certified Arborist number and attach resumes. Name Years of Experience ISA Certified Arborist number Rainbow Treecare 11571 K-Tel Dr. Minnetonka, MN 55343 952-217-9776 rspencer@rainbowtreecare.com Ryan Spencer 46 40+ City of Maple Grove Kelly Matzke 763-494-6365 2022 City of Minnetonka Hannibal Hayes 952-988-8436 2022 City of Lino Lakes Andrew Nelson 651-982-2465 2022 Ryan Spencer 4 MN-4926A Danielle Asper 5 MN-4807A 4/4/2023 Page 13 of 130 5. List names of person(s) who will perform field inspections for this contract (providing estimates and tree evaluations), number of years of experience, qualifications and ISA Certified Arborist number if applicable and attach resumes. Name Years of Experience Qualifications/ISA Certified Arborist number P.J Zobeck 10+ MN-4509A Hannah Tuomi 5 MN-4865A List names of licensed Minnesota commercial pesticide applicators available for this contract and their qualifications and attach resumes. Last First License # Categories Chapman Alex 20196563 A,E Asper Danielle 20171848 A,E Schoenike Paul 20108150 A,E Francisco Zackery 20205112 A,E Hohneke Caleb 20166429 A,E Leahy Daniel 20235513 A,E Narveson Kyle 20144133 A,E Gann Wyatt 20226657 A,E *This list will be supplemented with seasonal EAB injection hires. 6. Please describe the guarantee/warranty program if any and describe the period covered, applicable criteria and eligibility for ash treatments (Emamectin benzoate): Rainbow Treecare guarantees your ash tree will not die from an Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) infestation while under our warranty. If your ash tree dies from an EAB infestation while under our guarantee, you will be refunded your last EAB treatment cost. We will deliver treatments using research tested products using the most up to date protocols to provide for optimal effectiveness. We will visually inspect your protected tree(s) every 1-2 years to examine for evidence of Emerald Ash Borer infestation. This inspection may take place at the time of re-treatment. We are available to look at your tree at any time should you be concerned about its condition. This guarantee is fully transferable to a new property owner. Page 14 of 130 Our trunk injected Emamectin benzoate EAB guarantee will begin upon treatment and will last for two years from the date of treatment. The guarantee will not lapse if the re-treatment has been approved prior to the expiration of the two year warranty period and your account is in good standing. Rainbow Treecare reserves the right to treat ash trees with signs of infestation, or in a visually infested area, without a warranty. Non-warranty status of treatments will be determined at time of bidding and will be clearly labeled on the treatment contract. 7. The proposer is required to assist with producing marketing and education materials for the Homeowner Program. Please describe or include examples of previous work and any other ideas to reach out to residents. Rainbow Treecare has been a national leader in communicating the impacts of EAB since 2004. Rainbow Treecare has the ability to create co-branded, direct mail post cards informing residents of the presence of EAB in the community, and the bulk treatment discount (example attached). In addition to physical mailers, Rainbow Treecare can create a city specific landing page for the program (example attached). Rainbow Treecare also has an existing library of photos, informational graphics, and videos that can be shared with residents on Rainbow’s social media channels, or by the City on it’s website or social media pages. Example of homeowner mailer: Page 15 of 130 Example of City landing page: Page 16 of 130 ATTACHMENT 2 MUNICIPAL PROGRAM QUOTE EAB INJECTION SERVICES Chemical Name used in Treatment _______________________________________________________ DBH Price per inch (DBH) Price Per Tree 10” $ $ 11” $ $ 12” $ $ 13” $ $ 14” $ $ 15” $ $ 16” $ $ 17” $ $ 18” $ $ 19” $ $ 20” $ $ 21” $ $ 22” $ $ 23” $ $ 24” $ $ 25” $ $ 26” $ $ 27” $ $ 28” $ $ 29” $ $ 30” $ $ 31” $ $ 32” $ $ 33” $ $ 34” $ $ 35” $ $ 36” $ $ 37” $ $ Mectinite: EPA Reg. No. 74779-17 4.00 40.00 4.00 44.00 4.00 48.00 4.00 52.00 4.00 56.00 4.00 60.00 4.00 64.00 4.00 68.00 4.00 72.00 4.00 76.00 4.00 80.00 4.00 84.00 4.00 88.00 4.00 92.00 4.00 96.00 4.00 100.00 4.00 104.00 4.00 108.00 4.00 112.00 4.00 116.00 4.00 120.00 4.00 124.00 4.00 128.00 4.00 132.00 4.00 136.00 4.00 140.00 4.00 144.00 4.00 148.00 Page 17 of 130 ATTACHMENT 3 HOMEOWNER PROGRAM QUOTE EAB INJECTION SERVICES Chemical Name used in Treatment _______________________________________________________ DBH Price per inch (DBH) Price Per Tree 10” $ $ 11” $ $ 12” $ $ 13” $ $ 14” $ $ 15” $ $ 16” $ $ 17” $ $ 18” $ $ 19” $ $ 20” $ $ 21” $ $ 22” $ $ 23” $ $ 24” $ $ 25” $ $ 26” $ $ 27” $ $ 28” $ $ 29” $ $ 30” $ $ 31” $ $ 32” $ $ 33” $ $ 34” $ $ 35” $ $ 36” $ $ 37” $ $ Mectinite: EPA Reg. No. 74779-17 7.25 72.50 7.25 79.25 7.25 87.00 7.25 94.25 7.25 101.50 7.25 108.75 7.25 116.00 7.25 123.25 7.25 130.50 7.25 137.75 7.25 145.00 7.25 152.25 7.25 159.50 7.25 166.75 7.25 174.00 7.25 181.25 7.25 188.50 7.25 195.75 7.25 203.00 7.25 210.25 7.25 217.50 7.25 224.75 7.25 232.00 7.25 239.25 7.25 246.50 7.25 253.75 7.25 261.00 7.25 268.25 Page 18 of 130 Ryan Spencer Phone: 651-274-1417 E-mail: rspencer@rainbowtreecare.com Education University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Graduation: May 2018 College of Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resource Sciences Major: Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management Focus in Policy, Planning, Law and Society Minor: Corporate Environmental Management Relevant Experience Rainbow Treecare, Minnetonka, Minnesota June 2021-Present Municipal Consulting Arborist ● Manages over 30 public private tree treatment programs ● Consults with municipalities about impacts of tree pest/disease and treatment strategies ● Analyzes data and communicates environmental impact of tree treatment strategies Rainbow Treecare, Minnetonka, Minnesota February 2019-June 2021 Client Experience Supervisor ● Hiring, training, and developing team to meet yearly call center metric goals ● Resolving client escalations, property damages, and billing disputes ● Improving client experience through creation and improvement of internal processes and workflows across the business unit ● Designing and implementing customer communications and inside sales campaigns Rainbow Treecare, Minnetonka, Minnesota May 2018-February 2019 Client Experience Coordinator ● Responded professionally to clients over phone call and email in a fast paced environment ● Educated customers on products and services offered by Rainbow Treecare and Lawncare ● Sold fertilizer programs, aeration, and seeding services over phone and email United States Forest Service, St. Paul, Minnesota November 2016- May 2017 Forest Inventory and Analysis ● Analyzed and organized Forest Inventory and Analysis data ● Maintained timely and accurate interpretation and entry of data ● Provided data that will be used in Forest Service reports for twenty four states Rainbow Treecare, Minnetonka, Minnesota June-August 2016, 2017 Injectcare Technician Crew Lead ● Led a crew of four people to perform preventive tree treatments ● Trained to identify tree diseases and treat with chemical infusion ● Communicated to homeowners best management practices and importance of proper tree care Skills ArcGIS, Excel, PowerPoint, Word, Customer Service, Sales, Management, Leadership Certification ISA Certified Arborist MN-4926A Page 19 of 130 Danielle Asper 8716 Glasgow Ln St. Bonifacius MN, 55375 Cell: (952) 201-5516 dasper@rainbowtreecare.com Bachelor of Science in Biology, Emphasis: Field, Minor: Agricultural Conservation University of Wisconsin-River Falls (UWRF), May 2014 Relevant Work Fire Instructor I, Customized Fire Rescue Training Inc. September 2022-Present Firefighter/EMT, St. Bonifacius Fire Department April 2020-Present Injections Field Supervisor; Hiring Manger, Rainbow Treecare June 2016-Present Assistant Restaurant Manager, Muy Pizza Hut Dec. 2015-July 2017 - Provided excellent customer service guaranteeing guest satisfaction - Managed a crew of 10 to 15 people during lunch and dinner rushes - Coordinated schedules, inventory and hiring of new crew members daily - Ensured promise time of delivery and carryout orders under 30 and 15 minutes - Satisfied disgruntled guests and employees daily - Maintained facilities and quality assurance - Prepared all daily prep list, dough, and floor layouts - Followed all food safety and company policies to a tee Server, River Valley Catering July 2015-Dec. 2015 - Catered to the needs of all guests when presented with the opportunity - Prepared served and plated appetizers and full three to five course meals - Loaded, unloaded, and drove catering trucks, vans and cars - Set up tables, chairs, dishware, and decorations before each event - Served alone for 20-70 people Person in Charge, Jimmy Johns Dec. 2014-July 2015 - Supervised six to eight crew members during lunch and dinner rushes - Handled customer complaints in a manner that meets all their requested needs - Executed crew management plans daily - Preparing, made to order sandwiches in less than 30 seconds - Followed all cleaning procedures and policies to reduce foodborne pathogens - Followed all policies in every detail Kinnickinnic State Park, (Seasonal) Visitor Associate May 2014-Sept. 2014 - Weekly water sampling and water quality reporting (pH, Temperature, organic material) - Daily assigned tasks, handled independently and in small groups - Executing well thought out plans to emergency calls - Assessed all occupational hazards and followed all safety precautions - Reading daily River Flow Gauge to accurately report river water levels to guests - Reviewing daily weather reports to plan accordingly Page 20 of 130 - Daily use of UTVs, ATVs, trucks, and backing/towing trailers - Daily repairing and cleaning of facilities, equipment, and grounds (Painting, concrete removal, etc) - Conducted thorough inspection of all grounds daily insuring safety of all guests - Trimming, sawing, and pulling woody vegetation - Weekly turf maintenance Apple River Family Campground, (Seasonal) Weekend Supervisor May 2013-Aug. 2014 - Frequently made well thought out decisions - Installed water and sewer lines for guest services - Executed well thought out plans to emergency calls - Herbicide and Pesticide application - Driving of large vans, trucks, small buses, and backing/towing trailers - Managing 10-15 crew members using strong communication skills both oral and written - River clean up requiring the use of hands to feel objects, handle trash and collecting tools - Daily pool water testing, reporting and record keeping (pH, Chlorine, Bromine) - Daily meter and gauge reading of water levels ensuring safety of guests who use the river recreationally - Lifting and moving of heavy equipment and materials over 75lbs - Daily cleaning, repairing, and maintaining of building, equipment and grounds - Assisted maintenance supervisor with installing plumping, herbicide application and fixing vehicles - Daily turf maintenance - Hanging, weekend themed decorations - Standing for long periods of time while walking the grounds assessing guest’s needs Sandwich Artist, Subway Oct 2007-May 2020 -Prepared, to order sandwiches fast and efficiently, meeting the customer’s needs -Chopped, mixed, baked and sliced fresh vegetables, meats, and breads daily -Keeping attention to detail so that each sandwich is as perfect as the picture and formulated properly Orientation Leader, New Student Family Programs Sept 2011-Dec 2013 -Encouraged new students to branch out and try new experiences during their college experience -Guided groups of 20+ people around campus helping them find everything they need -Giving individual attention to each student’s needs and wants so they find UWRF their new home -Practiced Walt Disney World’s level of customer service. Through a positive impression and a perfect role model Assistant Manager, Star Prairie Trout Farm (Seasonal) June 2013-Nov. 2013 - Installed, operated, and repaired electrical oxygenating pumps that kept the trout alive in small pools - Using hands and hand tools to pull muck and weeds - Gauge and meter readings of water levels, carrying capacities, and oxygen - Escorted guests on tours of the facility using educated knowledge and interactive examples - Prepared reports, monitored fish, collected data, and analyzed samples to determine pond carrying capacities - Lifting and moving hundreds of pounds fish efficiently and cautiously - Driving of large trucks and backing/towing trailers - Grading, weighing, and aging fish for future sales and determining carrying capacities of ponds - Complied with all state and federal operation regulations which protects natural spawns of trout Page 21 of 130 - Pulling weeds in 48-degree water and 90-degree weather - Daily maintenance and repair of vehicles and mowers - Daily use of trailers, vans, lawn tractors, trucks and mower Independent Unpaid Intern, Willow River State Park (Seasonal) May 2013-Aug. 2013 - Independently completed over 30 successful projects - Lifting and moving of heavy equipment over 75lbs - Stood as Representative in guest and media relations giving perspective to future volunteers and guests - Conducted weekly routine checks of facilities and grounds reporting all issues and collecting inventory - Cut down, bucked up and stacked logs for natural playground - Daily garbage pickup with the use of trucks, rakes, nets, and by hand - Assisted department personnel with catch and release of native wildlife - Laid sod, removed wasps, and repaired minor damages to playground equipment - Balancing and climbing for long periods of time while painting signs and buildings Dairy Farm Laborer, UWRF Mann Valley Lab Farm May 2012-Sept 2013 - Followed all health codes and procedures to reduce the risk of human to animal illnesses - Operated all controls of an automatic take-off milking system - Subjected daily to confined spaces - Assessed all occupational hazards and Adhered to all safety precautions - Lifting and moving of heavy equipment over 75lbs - Assisted supervisor in routine medical procedures (shots and artificial insemination) - Grounds maintenance (lawn mowing, weed whipping) - Daily use of motorized vehicles (Skid Steer, Lawn Tractor and Tractor) - Plowing frozen manure and snow from animal stalls almost daily during the winter months - Assisted supervisor with Artificial insemination by obtaining and holding materials - Crouching for long periods of time while assisting farm manager with sick heifers Undergrad Researcher, St. Croix Institute for Sustainable Community Develop. Sept. 2011-May 2012 - Prepared detailed progress reports of research - Maintained accurate records of all data collected - Collected and analyzed samples using proper procedures to reduce bias, contamination, etc. - Preformed laboratory testing of soils and water determining sediment and chemical content - Presented findings at the National Conference of Undergraduate Research to 4000+ peers - Preformed weekly public relations duties (meetings, advertising, etc) Tour Guide, University of Wisconsin River Falls Sept 2011-Sept 2012 -Encouraged potential students to choose UWRF though positive personal experience -Answered each guest’s questions and followed through with the correct up to date information -Treating each question as if I wanted to know the answer as well and as if it were never asked before Receptionist, Student Support Services (UWRF) Nov 2010-Sept 2012 -Answered calls in a timely manner with a friendly tone, while directing each caller to their desired party Page 22 of 130 -Accomplishing small projects independently in a timely manner with the use of written description -Designing celebration layouts for upcoming group events -Organizing group events and calling attendees for RSVP’s -Addressing each walk-in guest with respect and my full attention Cook, Indian Creek Tavern June 2006-Sept 2011 -Fried and grilled an assortment of meals from a package and scratch -Paid close attention to food temperatures to decrease bacteria growth and foodborne pathogens -Created plates of not only quantity but quality making sure each dish was very presentable -Catered to each customer’s specific tastes for any certain dish -Greeted loyal customers daily for feedback on their entire experience Relevant Volunteering 1940 hours First Aide Volunteer, MN Twins Target Field April 2022-October 2022 Tree and Shrubs Trimmer, Minnesota Arboretum May 2021-Present Foster, Secondhand Hounds January 2022- Present President, Resource Management Club (UWRF) Sept. 2012- May 2014 - Kept accurate records of all events for affective succession planning - Exposure to chemicals, heat, humidity, and risk of electrical shock (pesticide application, vehicle repair) - Frequent communication both oral and written with event hosts insuring everything was in order and finalized - Adhered to all health codes and safety precautions when executing programs maintaining the safety of others - Facilitated students through educational programs to youth and adults using lesson plans and PowerPoint - Worked independently and in small groups planning and executing programs - Maintained consistent of each participants location during a hectic scenario ensuring safety - Assisted DNR personnel with various projects in extremely hot and cold weathers - Removed invasive woody vegetation with the use of hand tools and chainsaws - Planted native prairie seed and fertilizer to native pot-hole prairies - Conducted research documenting the catch and release of native species of waterfowl and fish - Assisted Conservation Warden on routine inspection and documentation of illegal use of land near water AmeriCorps member, Alternative Spring Break Program (UWRF) Mar 2011- Mar 2014 - Daily work improving the quality of life for the environment and people in need - Frequent work in wet and humid conditions - Conducted data collection, surveys, and reported findings to the collation staff to improve demographics - Operated hand tools, power tools, small and heavy machinery (Skid Steer, power washer, saws) - Interior and exterior home improvement including hurricane proofing and roofing - Picked up trash in knee high water on the banks of the Mississippi Page 23 of 130 - Carried hundreds of pounds worth of 10-20lb. bags of trash from one side of a river barge to the other - Using shovels to unearth and move large pieces of debris - Refurbishing antiques and furniture at Arcola Mills - Removed and treated invasive Buckthorn with loppers and herbicide - Handed out baked goods to people in homeless shelters - Worked long hours from early morning to late at night in soup kitchens in Cincinnati Founder/Treasurer, UWRF Ducks Unlimited Club Sept. 2010- Sept 2013 - Kept accurate financial records of all spending and income ensuring banquet profits were donated properly - Developed budgets and maintained payments - Insured all accounts receivable and payable were handled timely - Worked with wildlife in swamps, ponds, and drainage basins - Researched, developed, and restored a drainage basin/water control system, increasing clean river discharge - Water and soil sampling, testing and analysis (pH, chemical levels, and profile) - Building 22 Wood Duck House from start to finish- installing them in/on icy rivers - Loading and unloading DU merchandise for annual banquets - Assisting banquet personnel with set up and take down of table, chairs, and large tents Volunteer Coordinator, Kinnickinnic Backpack Program Sept. 2010- May 2014 - Supervised 20+ children, students, and adults - Maintained detailed financial, volunteer and inventory records - Frequently used Microsoft Office Excel, Word, PowerPoint, and Publisher - Lifted and moved up to 75+ pounds of donated food Volunteer, St. Croix Valley Habitat for Humanity Sept. 2010- Sept. 2012 - Daily use of power and hand tools - Assessed all occupational hazards and followed all safety precautions - Required to stand, kneel, walk, climb ladders and reach - Worked in confined spaces - Kept accurate financial records and budgets Volunteer, Wisconsin DNR Sept. 2010- May 2014 - Acted as a public relations representative answering questions and enforcing laws - Maintained and repaired an underwater/underground water control system - Deer aging and Chronic Wasting Disease sampling and testing - Executed a well thought out successful search and rescue plan of a young swan Page 24 of 130 Additional Achievements and Certifications -NFPA 1041 Fire Instructor I -NFPA 1001 Firefighter I & II - NFPA 1072 HAZ-MAT - TCIA Qualified Crew Lead - TCIA Certified Tree Safety Professional -ISA Certified Arborist MN-1074A - Class A CDL - Diamond Award for Food Safety 2016 - Commercial Applicator’s License - $8500 Restoration Grant Award Recipient 2012 - Undergraduate Researcher in Sustainability - Boat Safety Certified - Chainsaw Safety Certified - S-190 (Introduction to Wildland Fire Behavior) - L-180 (Human Factors on the Fire Line) - Certification Coordinator (Chainsaw Safety) - S-130 (Wildland Fire Fighter Training) - UW-RF Freshman Orientation Leader - Youth Hunger Program Coordinator - Education Award for National Service 2011 - Compass Award for Community Service 2013 - Chancellor’s Award 2014 - Fish and Wildlife Volunteer of the Year 2014 - ATV/UTV Certified (WI) -Boom and Electroshocking Certified Additional Training - ArcGIS - Water Quality testing - Wildlife Management - Specialized Laboratory Use - Type 2 Wildland Firefighter - (FEMA) Incident Command System 100 - Soil Sampling - Field Research, data collection - Wildlife Identification - Scientific Writing - Sign Language - Conflict Resolution - Land Use and Policy Reviewing - Map Analyzing and Interpretation - Geology (Rock/Mineral Identification) - Chainsaw Safety - Ecological Restoration: Habitat Monitoring - Soil and Water Conservation Additional Skills - Public Speaking - Fish Identification - Wildlife Identification - Classroom Teaching - Tree/Plant Identification - Insect Identification - Proven Leadership Skills - Team Player - Work Ethic - Self-Starter - Field Research - Conference Presenting - Ability to Work Independently - Experience Working with Diverse Individuals - Motivated - Outdoor Education - Strong Written and Oral Communication Skills - Patient - Enthusiastic - Strong Interpersonal Skills - Highly Organized - Specialty Lab Use Page 25 of 130 Hannah Tuomi St. Paul, MN • htuomi@rainbowtreecare.com • 952-652-4619 Experience Rainbow Tree Company • Minnetonka, MN Lead Associate Arborist • March 2020 - Present Associate Arborist • March 2019 - March 2020 • Visit client properties to assess ash trees for invasive pest and write proposals for treatment • Correspond with clients via phone and email to answer questions and manage client expectations • Aid commercial arborists with tree inventories and tree management plans for properties • Help train the Associate Arborist team and coordinate the daily tasks of the team members City of Lakeville Forestry Division • Lakeville, MN Seasonal Tree Inspector • September 2018 - March 2019 • Planned for and planted 19 trees in city parks with tree species diversity in mind • Performed tree inspections on private and city property for hazards and pests and diseases • Inspected 143 city park and right-of-way ash trees for removal as part of a management plan • Supported city staff with a tree pruning and removal contract for a street reconstruction project City of Lakeville Forestry Division • Lakeville, MN Minnesota GreenCorps Member • September 2017 - August 2018 • Completed a canopy cover analysis to determine the city’s canopy cover and tree benefits • Inventoried over 1,000 trees using Tree Plotter software as part of a citywide tree inventory • Carried out residential tree inspections of oak, elm, and ash trees for pests and diseases • Assisted in preparing material for and coordinating a tree and shrub sale for city residents Education University of Minnesota, Morris • Morris, Minnesota Bachelor of Arts • Major in Environmental Studies • Minors in Spanish and Political Science Courses Natural Resource Management: integrated pest management, agroforestry, soil degradation, watersheds Ecology: native tree and prairie plant identification, plant adaptations, photosynthesis, carbon cycle Evolution of Biodiversity: phylogeny, plant life cycle, seed and flowering plant morphology Skills Arboriculture: tree identification; tree planting, pruning and inventorying; pest and disease identification Software: Microsoft Office, Tree Plotter Tree Inventory Software, ArcGIS, i-Tree Canopy Interpersonal: self-motivation, time management, teamwork, detail oriented, active listening, patience Language: Spanish proficiency, French proficiency Certifications ISA Certified Arborist • International Society of Arboriculture Certified Tree Inspector • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Page 26 of 130 ATTACHMENT 4 GIS POINT FEATURE ATTRIBUTES EAB INJECTION SERVICES Field Alias Field Name Type Length Coded Value Domain Description Example Tree Injection ID TreeNumber Text 20 Unique ID used to Identify Tree for the project. Will be imported as Legacy ID in the City's Tree Inventory 1234 Address Address Text 254 Property Address where the tree was injected. Will be imported into the Comments field in the City inventory. Used as a double check to ensure the GPS locations matches the site location. 1234 Ash St. Species Common Text 50 Common Name of the Tree Ash, Green Location Location Text 100 Location of the Tree in relation to landmarks on property West of driveway DBH DBH Double Diameter at Breast Height in Inches rounded to the nearest half Inch 20 Treatment Method TreatmentMethod Text 30 Action Treatment Method Default Value = Injection Trunk Injection Treatment Date TreatmentDate Date Date of Treatment (Injection) 7/1/2023 Product Product Text 254 Chemical used to treat tree. Mectinite: EPA Reg. No. 74779-17 Product Volume Product_Vol Numeric Volume of chemical used 100 Price Price Numeric Price of treatment 75 Tagged Tagged Text 10 YesNo Identifies whether a tag is on the tree Yes Ownership Ownership Text 254 Private Public Designate whether the tree is a public or private tree injection Public GPS Accuracy GPSAccuracy Double GPS Accuracy Accuracy of the GPS positions collected for the tree point 5ft Notes Notes Text 254 Additional comments/notes Planted deep Tree points will be represented by a point feature class within a shapefile or geodatabase (*.gdb or *.mdb) compatible with Esri’s ArcGIS Pro version 3.0 or later. Point feature attributes must include attributes matching the schema (see Attachment Table above or request template geodatabase from City) of the Tree Feature Class provided by the city in addition to any attributes recorded for the treatment program. Every effort should be made to collect x-/y-coordinates within 2 meters of the Tree. In the event this accuracy cannot be met, horizontal accuracy of 5 meters will be accepted if verified with aerial photography to ensure the approximate location of each tree on a property as distinct from one another. Pa g e 2 7 o f 1 3 0 STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES Page 1 of 4 This Agreement (“Agreement”) is made on the day of , 2023, between the City of Farmington, Minnesota (hereinafter "City"), whose business address is 430 Third Street, Farmington, Minnesota 55024, and , a Minnesota (hereinafter "Vendor") whose business address is . Preliminary Statement The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions for the provision of services by Vendor for Tree Injection for Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) hereinafter referred to as the "Work". The City and Vendor agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work. The Vendor agrees to provide, perform, and complete all the provisions of the Work in accordance with the specifications, and quotes attached as Exhibit A. The terms of this Contract shall take precedence over any provisions of the Vendor’s proposal and/or general conditions. All Work under the Municipal Program shall be initiated by a notice to proceed from the City. 2. Term of Contract. All Work under this Contract shall be provided, performed and/or completed by September 30, 2023. At the expiration of the initial contract term, the City, at its sole discretion may extend the contract for up to two (2) additional years. 3. Compensation for Services. City agrees to pay the Vendor based on the fees submitted in the proposal as full and complete payment for the goods, labor, materials and/or services rendered pursuant to this Contract. 4. Method of Payment. Payment shall be made to the Contractor providing services for the City only for work requested by the City through a Work Order. The Contractor is required to submit one invoice per Work Order after satisfactory completion of the work and each invoice shall include the following: date work was completed, address/facility/area where work was performed, any rate charges, and any other pertinent information. No travel time will be paid. Invoices shall be submitted to accountspayable@farmingtonmn.gov City of Farmington Attn: Finance Department 430 Third St. Farmington, MN 55024 5. Staffing. The Vendor has designated to manage the Work. They shall be assisted by other staff members as necessary to facilitate the completion of the Work in accordance with the terms established herein. Vendor may not remove or replace the designated staff without the approval of the City. Page 28 of 130 STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES Page 2 of 4 6. Standard of Care. Vendor shall exercise the same degree of care, skill and diligence in the performance of its services as is ordinarily exercised by members of the profession under similar circumstances in Dakota County, Minnesota. 7. Insurance. a. General Liability. Vendor shall maintain a general liability insurance policy with limits of at least $1,500,000.00 for each person, and each occurrence, for both personal injury and property damage. The coverage may be provided by a single policy or a combination of policies, including umbrella insurance policies. Vendor shall provide City with a Certificate of Insurance verifying insurance coverage before providing service to the City. b. Worker's Compensation. Vendor shall secure and maintain such insurance as will protect Vendor from claims under the Worker's Compensation Acts and from claims for bodily injury, death, or property damage which may arise from the performance of Vendor’s services under this Contract. 8. Indemnification. Vendor will defend and indemnify City, its officers, agents, and employees and hold them harmless from and against all judgments, claims, damages, costs and expenses, including a reasonable amount as and for its attorney’s fees paid, incurred or for which it may be liable resulting from any breach of this Contract by Vendor, its agents, contractors and employees, or any negligent or intentional act or omission performed, taken or not performed or taken by Vendor, its agents, contractors and employees, relative to this Contract. City will indemnify and hold Vendor harmless from and against any loss for injuries or damages arising out of the negligent acts of the City, its officers, agents or employees. 9. Termination. This Contract may be terminated by either party by thirty (30) days' written notice delivered to the other party at the addresses written above. Upon termination under this provision if there is no fault of the Vendor, the Vendor shall be paid for services rendered until the effective date of termination. 10. Independent Contractor. At all times and for all purposes herein, the Vendor is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. No statement herein shall be construed so as to find the Vendor an employee of the City. 11. Non-Discrimination. During the performance of this Contract, the Vendor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicants for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, familial status, disability, sexual orientation, or age. The Vendor shall post in places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provision of this non-discrimination clause and stating that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment. The Vendor further agrees to comply with all aspects of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes 363A.01, et. seq., Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended. 12. Subcontract or Assignment. Vendor shall not subcontract any part of the services to be provided under this Contract; nor may Vendor assign this Contract, or any interest arising herein, without the prior written consent of the City. Page 29 of 130 STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES Page 3 of 4 13. Services Not Provided For. No claim for services furnished by Vendor not specifically provided for in Exhibit A shall be honored by the City. 14. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. Vendor is responsible for knowing of and abiding by all statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the type of services provided pursuant to this Contract; including, as applicable, the Minnesota Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 13, as amended, and Minnesota Rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter 13. 15. Audits and Data Practices. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the Vendor or other parties relevant to this agreement are subject to examination by the City and either Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor for a period of six years after the effective date of this contract. This Contract is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practice Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). All government data, as defined in the Data Practices Act Section 13.02, Subd 7, which is created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by Vendor in performing any of the functions of the City during performance of this Contract is subject to the requirements of the Data Practice Act and Vendor shall comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. All subcontracts entered into by Vendor in relation to this Contract shall contain similar Data Practices Act compliance language. 16. Conflicts. No salaried officer or employee of the City and no member of the Council, or Commission, or Board of the City shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in this contract. The violation of this provision renders the contract void. Any federal regulations and applicable state statutes shall not be violated. 17. Utilities. The Contractor shall be obligated to protect all public and private utilities, streets or roadways, whether occupying a street or public or private property. If such utilities, streets or roadways are damaged by reason of the Contractor’s performance of the services required under the contract, the Contractor shall repair or replace the same, or failing to do so promptly, the City shall cause repairs or replacement to be made and the cost of doing so shall be deducted from payment to be made to the Contractor for tree services. 18. Damages. In the event of a breach of this Contract by the City, Vendor shall not be entitled to recover punitive, special or consequential damages or damages for loss of business. 19. Governing Law. This Contract shall be controlled by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 20. Severability. The provisions of this Contract are severable. If any portion hereof is, for any reason, held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, such decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Contract. 21. Entire Agreement. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This Contract supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the Page 30 of 130 STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES Page 4 of 4 provisions of this Contract shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein. Executed as of the day and year first written above. CITY OF FARMINGTON __________________________________ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor __________________________________ Lynn Gorski, City Administrator VENDOR By: ________________________________ Its: _______________________________ Page 31 of 130 COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: John Powell, Public Works Director Department: Engineering Subject: Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Management Plan - Update Meeting: Work Session - Dec 04 2023 INTRODUCTION: Earlier this year, the City Council considered various scenarios for an updated EAB Management Plan. On March 20, 2023, the City Council approved Scenario #4 which aggressively responds to the EAB while keeping public safety as the focus. Scenario #4 pertains to public trees, particularly those in boulevard areas (City right-of-way outside of the roadway) and park areas. This scenario uses a coordinated approach on public ash trees, including extensive tree removals, along with injection of an insecticide to extend the health of the trees until they can be safely removed. At the same time, we have a significant effort underway to perform boulevard tree trimming along roadways. Staff wants to provide a brief update to the City Council on our progress and challenges so far. An annual update will be provided in March or April of 2024. DISCUSSION: Trimming of boulevard trees is specifically addressed in Section 7-6-4 of the City Code, including the following language:  The City will be responsible for all trimming of boulevard trees. As these trees are on City property, and are essentially and legally City property, they must be maintained by the City to control disease and integrity structural for properly are they that ensure trimmed measures.  Trimming height standards must maintain a ten-foot (10') clearance above any walkway and fourteen feet (14') above the roadway. These requirements provide clearance for walkers, snow removal equipment and solid waste vehicles. In addition to snow removal and solid waste vehicles, the clearance is also needed for emergency vehicles, buses, maintenance vehicles, etc. Many city roadways currently fall below the standards identified in City Code. Following are some metrics for trees removed, trimmed, ash-treated and stumps removed so far in 2023. More trees will be trimmed in the next few weeks via contracted labor. Tree removals:  375 trees removed.  Includes 325 Ash trees; the remainder were dead/hazard trees of other species.  86% removed by contractors; the balance removed by City Staff. Page 32 of 130 Trimming:  570 trees trimmed.  65% trimmed by contractors; the balance by City Staff. Treatment: 1,060 trees by contractor. Stump Removal: 449 stumps removed by contractors Ongoing challenges include the following:  Nuisance and hazardous trees need to be given the highest priority whether they are Ash trees or not.  Staff is finding inaccuracies in the Ash tree survey prepared by former City Staff. Some trees on private property are shown as public, some public trees are missing, etc. This requires Staff to field verify the location and existence of all trees before scheduling removal work with a contractor.  From a safety standpoint, trees are a priority, but stumps are not.  Many property owners have actively invested in treating boulevard Ash trees. While these trees will eventually have to be removed, they are being left in as long as the property owner continues to treat them (at the property owner's cost).  Some roadways have high trimming needs before we'll be able to remove the Ash trees, so crews will be in the same neighborhood multiple times.  Reforestation program has not yet been fully developed or launched. Ed Rutledge will be in attendance to discuss the above metrics and challenges. BUDGET IMPACT: Discussion only ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion only Page 33 of 130 COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: John Powell, Public Works Director Department: Engineering Subject: Speed Limit Background Meeting: Work Session - Dec 04 2023 INTRODUCTION: The issue of speed limit levels, the City's ability to set speed limits, and the process for changing speed limits has been raised in the past, and again more recently. This is a good opportunity to share background information on relatively recent legislative changes and research pertaining to speed limits. DISCUSSION: As excerpted from the attached LRRB Report: Minnesota Statute Section 169.14, subd. 2 was updated August 1, 2019, by the Minnesota State Legislature. The change gave cities the authority to establish speed limits for streets under their jurisdiction the by approval without and study speed a conduct MnDOT having without Commissioner of Transportation provided that:  Speed limits are implemented in a consistent and understandable manner.  The city erects appropriate signs to display the speed limit.  The city develops procedures to set speed limits based on the city’s safety, engineering, and traffic analysis considering national urban speed limit guidance and studies, local traffic crashes, and methods to effectively communicate the change to the public. The best practices process (which could be applied either citywide or roadway specific) described in the report is as follows: 1. Document Existing Conditions 2. Survey Residents and Elected Officials 3. Analyze your Data 4. Partnering with Law Enforcement 5. Evaluate Alternative Approaches/Make a Decision 6. Prepare a Policy Statement 7. Develop a Plan to Implement 8. Conduct a Follow-Up Assessment Attached are two examples of how Saint Paul and Minneapolis have responded to speed limit legislation changes. The approach for Farmington needs to be developed at a level of scope detail that meets our needs. The goal being that we develop a defined process that incorporates best Page 34 of 130 practices and transparency for the public. BUDGET IMPACT: Discussion only ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion only ATTACHMENTS: LRRB Report 2023RIC07 Saint Paul Speed Limit Evaluation Minneapolis Speed Limit Evaluation Page 35 of 130 FINAL REPORT 2023RIC07 Guidelines for Determining Speed Stonebrooke Limits on Municipal Roadways Engineering Page 36 of 130 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2023RIC07 2. 3. Recipients Accession No. 4. Title and Subtitle Guidelines for Determining Speed Limits on Municipal Roadways. 5. Report Date April 2023 6. 7. Author(s) Kate Miner, PE, PTOE, Tim Arvidson, PE 8. Performing Organization Report No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address Stonebrooke Engineering 12279 Nicollet Avenue Burnsville, Minnesota 5537 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. 11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No. 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Research & Innovation 395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 330 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Final Report 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes https://mdl.mndot.gov/ 16. Abstract (Limit: 250 words) The issue of reducing speed limits to increase public safety is an emotional, political, and controversial topic that has been debated by safety advocates, engineers, politicians, transportation ofcials, and the public for many years. A recent statutory change has put a spotlight on the topic, necessitating a deeper look into how speed limits are established and the efectiveness that lowering speed limits has on reducing vehicle traveling speeds, as well as the impacts on pedestrian and bicycle trafc. This document examines the history of speed limits, the recent statutory change, and the consequence of the change to communities. In addition, it examines the efectiveness of speed limit changes and outlines a process for agencies to follow when deciding to make a change, and ofers alternative strategies for pedestrian and bicycle safety. 17. Document Analysis/Descriptors Speed Limit Pedestrian Study MN Statute 169.14 Speed Study 18. Availability Statement No restrictions 19. Security Class (this report) 20. Security Class (this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price 2 Page 37 of 130 Table of Contents Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 History of Speed Limits ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 2019 Statute Change --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5 What Does that Mean for Your City? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------6 Efectiveness of a Speed Limit Change ----------------------------------------------------------------------------8 What Tools are Available? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8 National Guidance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8 Other Studies and Research ------------------------------------------------------------------------------8 Advocacy -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9 What are Your Options? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10 I. Maintain Status Quo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10 II. Reduce Speed Limits --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10 Process for Changing Speed Limit --------------------------------------------------------------11 III. Invest in Alternative Pedestrian Safety Strategies ----------------------------------------------------15 Addressing Citizen Concerns ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18 Summary & Recommendations --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19 APPENDIX A: Full Language of the Statute ---------------------------------------------------------------------20 APPENDIX B: Case Studies: Category Speed Limit -----------------------------------------------------------25 APPENDIX C: Research Fact Sheets -------------------------------------------------------------------------------27 Technical Advisory Panel Will Manchester - City of Minnetonka Ken Johnson - MnDOT Marc Culver - City of Roseville Victor Lund - St Lous County Dillon Dombrovski - City of Rochester Chad Millner - City of Edina Brad Estochen - Ramsey County Randy Newton - City of St Paul John Halter - City of Sartell Tim Plath - City of Eagan Jim Johnson - City of Chisholm Mark Vizecky - MnDOT Consultant Team Tim Arvidson - Stonebrooke Engineering Howard Preston - Stonebrooke Engineering Britt Berner - Stonebrooke Engineering 3 Page 38 of 130 Reducing speed limits to increase public safety is an emotional, political, and controversial topic that has been debated by safety advocates, engineers, politicians, transportation officials, and the public for many years. A recent statutory change spotlighted the topic, requiring a deeper look into how speed limits are established and the effectiveness that lowering speed limits has on reducing vehicle traveling speeds, as well as the impacts on pedestrian and bicycle traffic. This document examines the history of speed limits, the recent statutory change, and the consequence of the change to communities. In addition, it examines the effectiveness of speed limit changes, outlines a process for agencies to follow when deciding to make a change, and offers alternative strategies for pedestrian and bicycle safety. History of Speed Limits MN Statute 169.14 was passed in 1937, establishing consistent statewide speed limits for alleys, streets in urban districts, local roads, expressways, and interstate highways. Previously, speed limits were set locally. When established locally, speed zones were not consistent from city to city, were widely ignored and were thought to have been influenced more by local desires to generate revenue than considerations for safety. Statutory speed limits on most roadways include: ▪ 10 mph in alleys ▪ 30 mph on streets in urban districts (can be reduced to 25 mph if a speed zone is adopted and the roadway is property signed) ▪ 55 mph on other roads ▪ 65 mph on expressways ▪ 65 mph on urban interstate highways ▪ 70 mph on rural interstate highways However, If state or local authorities believed that the statutory limits would not be effective, the statute allowed for speed zones (non-statutory regulatory speed limits) to be established. Establishing a speed zone required that a speed study be conducted by MnDOT, and that the Commissioner of Transportation approved the change. Speed studies were conducted in accordance with guidance provided in the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD - Minnesota adopted their own version of this document commonly referred to as MN MUTCD). The MN MUTCD defines the standards used by road managers to install and maintain traffic control devices on public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel in Minnesota. The intent of these standards is to create uniformity and consistency in all public transportation systems. Establishing a speed zone involved completing an engineering and traffic investigation (speed study). Speeds limits were then set within 5 mph of the 85th percentile speed or within 10 mph of the pace mean speed. This process was chosen based on past research that indicated where the prevailing speeds are seven to eight mph over the 50th percentile speed (approximately the 85th percentile speed), overall crash rates are at a minimum. Use of the 85th percentile rule and the pace mean speed is consistent with conclusions of available transportation research as well as MnDOT and FHWA’s MUTCD guidance. This approach has successfully 4 Page 39 of 130 resulted in a high level of consistency in the establishment of speed limits among roads that have similar characteristics as well as a high level of compliance by road users. This approach is believed to provide the overall safest conditions with fewer crashes by ensuring uniform vehicle operating speeds. Recently changes have been proposed to the MUTCD that would reinforce the idea that other factors, in addition to the 85th-percentile speed, also have a role in setting speed limits including: • Road type and condition • Location and type of access points (intersections, entrances, pedestrian access, etc.) • Sufficient length of roadway (1/4 mile minimum) • Existing traffic control devices (signs, signals, etc.) • Crash history, traffic volume, sight distances (curve, hill, etc.) • Travel speed samples • Test drive results speed study • Road users (such as pedestrian activity, bicycle activity) 2019 Statute Change Minnesota Statute Section 169.14, subd. 2 was updated August 1, 2019, by the Minnesota State Legislature. The change gave cities the authority to establish speed limits for streets under their jurisdiction without having MnDOT conduct a speed study, and without approval by the Commissioner of Transportation provided that: • Speed limits are implemented in a consistent and understandable manner. • The city erects appropriate signs to display the speed limit. • The city develops procedures to set speed limits based on the city’s safety, engineering, and traffic analysis considering national urban speed limit guidance and studies, local traffic crashes, and methods to effectively communicate the change to the public. The change was the result of a request by the city of Minneapolis who wanted to have the ability to modify speeds on local roads to help improve pedestrian safety. A consistent legislative priority for the city was to either lower the statutory speed limit or give Minneapolis or cities of the first class the ability to set their own limits. The state legislature agreed to allow the statute change as requested by Minneapolis, but also felt the authority should be granted to all Minnesota Communities. No Change Alley speeds set based on city’s own engineering and trafc investigations (other than 10 mph require proper signing) No Change 25 mph in residential roadways if adopted by the road authority with proper jurisdiction and appropriately signed No Change 30 mph in urban districts 5 Page 40 of 130 What Does that Mean for Your City? Prior to the change, the statutory speed limit in urban districts was 30 mph unless otherwise posted. A city also had the option to reduce a limit to 25 mph provided that the change was adopted by the local road authority and the roadway was properly signed. The revised statute maintains these limits and does not require any action by a community. The change simply affords communities the opportunity to change speed limits on roads under their jurisdiction. This authority is granted only to city streets and does not apply to town roads, county highways, or trunk highways located in the city. Efectiveness of a Speed Limit Change Nationally, FHWA has examined over 100 sites in 22 states and found no change in vehicle speeds due to a change in the speed limit. Similar studies1 conducted by various cities in the US and Canada as well as studies by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety have also found that changing the speed limit alone had no effect on driver behavior. Some studies do however report the successful reduction of speeds when the speed limit change accompanies other mitigation strategies. For example, the city of Seattle examined five corridors2 and reported a small reduction in both the 50th and 85th percentile speeds when the frequency of speed limit signs was increase from every 1-1.5 miles to one every ¼ mile. Another study conducted on local streets in Woodbury, MN (statutory limit 30 mph) and River Falls, WI (statutory limit 25 mph) found similar 85th percentile speeds at these locations despite the difference in statutory limit. However, it did identify that the roadway width does affect travel speeds. Based on all available data, effectively lowering vehicle speeds requires a combination of physical, operational, and regulatory measures to be successful. Changing driver behavior and reducing speeds will require added enforcement and changes to the road environment to adjust driver perception. IN 50% OF PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CRASHES NO PARTICULAR ACTION BY DRIVERS COULD BE IDENTIFIED THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE CRASH. 1 Efects of Raising and Lowering Speed Limits on Selected Roadway Sections, FHWA, 1997 2 Speed Limit Case Studies, SDOT, 2020 6 Page 41 of 130 The most common actions that contribute to pedestrian and bicycle crashes include: ▪ Failure to yield - 11% ▪ Distracted Driver- 8% ▪ Careless/Reckless driving - 5% ▪ Failure to Obey Signal/Sign - 1% ▪ Speeding - 1% Another notable data point is that the Minnesota pedestrian and bicycle fatal crash rate is lower than neighboring states, despite having higher statutory speed limits. 0.79 Minnesota Wisconsin North Dakota South Dakota Iowa 1.05 0.88 0.89 1.3 In fact, 92% of communities in Minnesota experienced 0-1 serious pedestrian and bicycle crashes in the 10-year period between 2011 and 2020. ▪ 69% of communities had zero serious or fatal crashes ▪ Law enforcement cited speed as a contributing factor in 4% of serious pedestrian and bicycle crashes ▪ A plurality of crashes occur on city streets (44%) and a majority of these occur on the Municipal State Aid (MSA) stytem ▪ 50% of crashes occur at intersection (42% highway and 62% MSA streets) Of intersection crashes: ▪ 47% of intersection crashes occur at signals (61% for highways and 17% for city streets) ▪ 24% occur at stop signs (13% for highways and 44% for city streets) Despite this data, public perception is that reducing speeds limits will save lives. This perception is supported by the fact that the survivability of a pedestrian crash increases dramatically with lower speeds. However, studies have shown that many speeders on the local system tend to be the residents that live in the area and travel the streets most often. 7 Page 42 of 130 What Resources are Available? The newly revised statute requires that the safety, engineering, and traffic analysis done when considering a speed limit change must consider national urban speed limit guidance and studies. Therefore, it is important to understand the difference between national guidance, research, and advocacy documents. National Guidance The Federal MUTCD is the national standard for all traffic control devices installed on any street, highway, bikeway, or road open to public use. It also provides guidance on establishing speed limits. Minnesota agencies are statutorily bound to comply with MUTCD guidance. The MN MUTCD was developed to establish standards and to provide a uniform policy for the use of traffic control devices in the State of Minnesota. The MN MUTCD correlates with and conforms closely to the current system as approved by the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) and the national MUTCD. Other Studies and Research Guidance for the Setting of Speed Limits (NCHRP 17-76) 1 This study created two tools (one with macros and one without) that could better inform speed limits beyond the 85th percentile. These tools take factors such as urban vs rural, other roadway users, and roadway type into account. Design Speed, Operating Speed and Posted Speed Practices, (NCHRP Report 504) 2 This report summarized previous research and data collected through mail surveys. The findings were that there needs to be guidance added for the relationship between the 85th percentile and the posted speed limit. Speed limits are generally set 4-6 mph less than the 85th percentile speed. This report also added the need to specify radius, grade, access density, median presence, on-street parking, pedestrian activity, and signal density when determining speed. Effects of Raising and Lowering Speed Limits on Selected Roadway Sections (FHWA) 3 Although the changes in vehicle speeds were small, driver violations of the speed limits increased when the posted speed limits were lowered. Conversely, violations decreased when the speed limits were raised. This does not reflect a change in driver behavior, but rather, a change in how compliance is measured. No evidence supports crash experience changing with speed limit changes. Speed Concepts: Informational Guide (FHWA) 4 The study found that as speed increases, crash severity increases. There is not proper guidance on speed limit through the design phase. The 85th percentile may be higher than anticipated, especially on low or moderate speed roads. The design speed is NOT the maximum safe speed. Reducing speeds without other changes is likely to result in a small reduction of operating speed. Posted speed limits should always be within 5 mph of the 85th percentile speed. 1 Guidance for the Setting of Speed Limits, NCHRP, 2019 2 Design Speed, Operating Speed, and Posted Speed Practices, NCHRP, 2003 3 Efects of Raising and Lowering Speed Limits on Selected Roadway Sections, FHWA, 1997 8 Speed Concepts: Informational Guide, FHWA, 2009 4 Page 43 of 130 Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits (FHWA and Institute of Transportation Engineers)1 Identifies four methods for establishing speed limits (Engineering approach, Expert System Approach, Optimization and Injury Minimization). This is the Safe Speed Approach. This report provides practitioners with guidance on how to set speed limits in their jurisdiction without making specific policy recommendations or suggestions. The Safe Speed Approach resulted in speed limits that were at the lower end of the range of speeds enacted by the practitioners. ITE Speed Zoning Guidelines (Institute of Transportation Engineers Committee) 2 Identifies factors such as geometric design, roadside development, shoulder and road surface characteristics, pedestrian and bicycle activity, speed limits on adjoining highway segments, accident experience or potential that should be considered as part of an engineering speed study. In no case should the speed limit be set below the 67th percentile of free-flowing vehicles. The speed limit should be set to the nearest 5-mph increment to the 85th percentile or the upper limit of the 10-mph pace. No speed zone should be established in a location where 85th percentile speed is within 3 mph of the statutory speed limit. Reducing Speeding Related Crashes involving Passenger Vehicles (National Transportation Safety Board) 3 The NTSB focused on five measures of speeding: speed limits, data-driven approaches for enforcement, automated speed enforcement, intelligent speed adaptation, and national leadership. They state higher speeds are likely to lead to a higher number of, and more serious, crashes. The Safe System approach in determining other factors leading to safety issues needs to be considered. There is not strong evidence that the 85th percentile equates to the lowest crash involvement on all road types. Managing Speed: Review of Current Practice for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits (TRB report 254) 4 Limiting speed is not the only thing that should be considered for increased safety. Cutting down on impaired driving and increasing safety belt use have higher safety reduction. An increase in the age of the population also has a toll on safety. Congestion also increases driver frustration and encourages unsafe driving. Technology can help with the speed limit considerations. Technology can help the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcement. Advocacy The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)5 is “an advocacy group of major North American cities and transit agencies formed to exchange transportation ideas, insights, and practices and cooperatively approach national transportation issues.” A NACTO working group recently developed recommendations for setting speed limits on urban streets with the intent of providing an alternative to federal guidance. In addition, the Minnesota Department of Transportation recently conducted a statewide Speed Limit Vision6 project. This effort has resulted in a collection of educational and informative data that can be useful for addressing speed related issues. The stated goal is to develop a unified vision related to speed limits that was supported by cities, counties, and special interest groups, as well as public safety and enforcement professionals. The visioning project is based on minnesota speed limit history, as well as local and national research. A Technical Advisory Group was formed that included state, county, and city transportation professionals, as well as transit users, pedestrians, bicyclists, public health, law enforcement, and mobility impaired users. 1 Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits, FHWA, 2012 2 ITE Speed Zoning Guidelines, ITE 3 Reducing Speeding Related Crashes involving Passenger Vehicles, NTSB, 2017 4 5 Managing Speed: Review of Current Practice for Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits, TRB, 1998 City Limits, Setting Safe Speed Limits on Urban Streets, NACTO, 2018 9 A Minnesota Vision for Speed Limits, MnDOT, 2020 6 Page 44 of 130 What are Your Options The revised statute does not require any action. All statutory limits are still in place, the only significant change is that cities now have the ability to set speed limits on local roads if they choose. As a city, there are three options: you can maintain status quo, reduce speed limits on local street, or invest in alternative safety strategies. I. Maintain Status Quo Keeping the status quo doesn’t mean do nothing, it means identifying a problem and implementing a solution on a case-by-case basis using existing countermeasures currently being employed in the city. This approach would maintain current statutory city speeds (i.e., 30 mph on local streets) but would not prohibit reduction of speeds on certain city streets if deemed appropriate based on engineering studies and judgement. II. Reduce Speed Limits When considering lowering urban speed limits we recommend that you follow a best practices process. This process is based on a review of published research, discussions with public works professionals and law enforcement in Minnesota, analysis of data from both national and Minnesota data and consideration of risk management practices. The best practices process includes the following steps: Document Existing Conditions Survey Residents and Elected Ofcials Analyze your Data Partnering with Law Enforcement Evaluate Alternative Approaches/Make a Decision Prepare a Policy Statement Develop a Plan to Implement Conduct a Follow-Up Assessment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10 Page 45 of 130 Process for Changing Speed Limit 1. Document Existing Conditions Thoroughly understand the existing speed, safety, and traffic characteristics on your system. The outcome of this effort will establish the facts about how your road system is operating and will help you determine if there are real problems that need addressing or only the perception of problems. Establishing how your system is working is a key input to the subsequent effort to evaluate and ultimately select an approach to determine speed limits on your city’s streets. Collect speed data on a representative sample of roadways, covering the spectrum of roadways, including low volume residential streets, streets in central business areas, school zones, parks, urban collectors, and urban/suburban arterials. It is likely that these different types of roadways have different operating and safety characteristics, and it is important to be aware of these differences. Document safety characteristics using MnCMAT including total numbers of crashes, the number of serious crashes and fatalities, locations of crashes and contributing factors. MnCMAT can provide both city-wide overviews of crash data and specific information about corridors, individual intersections with documentation of numbers of crashes, types of crashes, crash severity and contributing factors. 2. Survey Residents and Elected Officials Understand the concerns of city residents and elected officials regarding safety and vehicle speeds. Separate fact from perception and determine if most residents and elected officials feel a certain way or if there is only a vocal minority. Conversations with public works professionals around the state have found that there is not uniform support for changing urban speed limits. It is important to know where your residents and elected officials stand on this topic as you go through the evaluation of alternatives. 3. Analyze Your Data Most city streets have a 30 mph limit based on the state statute covering urban areas. Collectors and minor arterials generally have higher speed zones that were determined by MnDOT. The traditional approach to analyzing speed data involves determining three performance measures: ▪ 50th percentile speed – the speed at which one-half of the drivers are travelling at or less ▪ 85th percentile speed – the speed at which 85 percent of the drivers are travelling at or less ▪ 10 mph pace – the 10 mph range that contains the greatest number of vehicles Conduct an analysis of the speed data collected and determine the 50th and 85th percentile speeds and the 10 mph pace. Identify the current prevailing speeds across the various classes of streets in your system. Note: Conversations with public works professionals indicate that some cities are finding the 85th percentile speed on their residential streets was around 25 mph, which supported changing the speed limit on those streets as well as an expectation that there would be a high level of compliance. Other cities with different roadway characteristics are finding prevailing speeds that supported retaining the current 30 mph limit. 11 Page 46 of 130 4. Partnering with Law Enforcement It is well known by traffic professionals that that drivers will generally pick an operating speed based on their perception of the road environment. If a community decides to lower the speed limits on streets when drivers are comfortable traveling at higher speeds, merely announcing a new speed limit will not change their behavior. Law enforcement can provide information about prevailing speeds and help identify problem areas. It is also helpful to understand current levels of enforcement effort and whether they have the capacity to provide increased enforcement in support of lower speed limits. It is also important to understand if there are conditions attached to these efforts. If you are considering lowering the speed limit on streets where prevailing speeds are higher, the best chance of changing operating speed without other changes to the roadway environment is through the application of high levels of enforcement. Therefore, it is important that law enforcement be on board with the decision. 5. Evaluate Alternative Approaches & Make a Decision After evaluating your system there are two likely outcomes: retain the historic speed limits or adopt new lower speed limits across your city’s system of streets. If the data supports retaining the 30 mph limit but elected officials decide that lower limits are called for, a possible plan of action would include the following steps: Conduct an informational session with the council and residents to share information. Potential topics should include: ▪ A discussion of published research. Adopting a lower speed limit and changing the number on a sign has never (by itself) changed the operating speeds selected by drivers. Changing the road environment will be required and until that is achieved additional enforcement will need to be provided to have any chance of lowering speeds. ▪ Discussions with law enforcement. Document what resources they would need to provide a higher level of speed enforcement and what other conditions they would place on the effort. ▪ Establishment of a performance measure associated with the lowered speed limit, so that at some point it can be concluded that the lowered speed limit did or did not achieve the desired outcome. Propose a temporary reduction in the speed limit (and an increased level of enforcement) for a specified period (six months to one year) combined with the collection of speed data to monitor the results. The idea would be to secure an agreement with the council that at the end of the specified period of the test, if the performance measure is achieved, the lower speed limit would be retained. However, if the performance measure for speed reduction is not achieved, the speed limit could revert to the statutory limit. The case for lowering speed limits should be based on determining that current speed profiles on some parts of the system indicate that prevailing speeds are lower than the statutory limit and the opinion of residents and elected officials in fact support a change. The suggested system-based speed limits are as follows: ▪ Local Residential Streets 25 mph ▪ Urban Collectors 30 mph ▪ Urban Minor Arterials 35 mph ▪ Multi-lane Suburban Minor Arterials 40 mph 12 Page 47 of 130 6. Prepare a Policy Statement The implementation of any new approach to managing speed along city streets creates an opportunity for claims of negligence and having a policy documenting your city’s approach to managing speed limits is a proven, effective technique for improving operations and managing risk. Specific benefits associated with policy development include: ▪ Guiding allocation of resources to cover initial and annual maintenance costs ▪ Providing direction to staff ▪ Establishing the procedures to be followed ▪ Setting priorities ▪ Supports establishing discretionary immunity A typical policy for establishment of speed limits on city streets should include the following: ▪ Background, Purpose and Goal ▪ Which roadways are to be covered by the policy – all city streets, low volume streets, various roadway classifications – residential, collectors, minor arterials, etc.? ▪ Document the approach/approaches selected for implementation – no change, new approach to all city streets, new approach to some city streets, combination of approaches, etc. ▪ How will changes be communicated to drivers – will speed limit signs be added to all roads or will notification of the changes be placed at entrances to the city? ▪ Document the impact of signing decisions on your sign maintenance budget. ▪ Document the level of coordination with law enforcement and any changes in enforcement practices. ▪ Document the effect of speed limit changes on future street design practices – design speed selection, street widths, etc. ▪ Commitments to deploy other infrastructure-based safety strategies, including expansion of sidewalks and trail systems, road diets, installation of curb extensions and median refuge islands, additions of rectangular rapid flash beacons and pedestrian hybrid beacon systems, and pedestrian enhancements at traffic signals (countdown timers and leading pedestrian interval). 7. Develop a Plan to Implement The objective of the implementation plan is to successfully convey the message to both drivers and residents that speed limits in your city have changed. Even though most drivers on your city streets are residents, many are not. Therefore, it is important to communicate any change or variance from state statute in a variety of ways. Suggestions to communicate a planned or pending change include: ▪ As part of the publication of city council minutes and in your city’s newsletter. ▪ Placing traffic signs (either permanent or temporary on Type III Barricades) on the major entrances to your city notifying drivers that there is a change in traffic control. ▪ Social media campaign. ▪ Finally, installing new speed limit signs on all streets where there has been a change in the limit. 13 Page 48 of 130 ▪ To provide uniformity between communities and minimize driver confusion it is important to effectively convey the speed limit to drivers. Conveying speed limit in a consistent and uniform manner to which drivers are accustomed to will minimize driver confusion as well as enforcement issues. While seemingly easy to implement the changing limits using a citywide approach opens several questions and concerns regarding “appropriate” signing. Some communities are choosing to install Gateway signs at their jurisdictional boundaries. The use of the gateway signing alone is likely to cause confusion if motorists enter the community on a non-jurisdictional road such as a state highway or county road where a gateway sign may not be allowed. Additionally, gateway signs are not something that motorists are accustomed to in Minnesota. As a result, a motorist traveling between jurisdictions, or transitioning between non-signed local streets and other roadways, may not be aware when a speed limit has changed. Discussion with law enforcement officers has also identified a reluctancy to write citations without a visible regulatory sign. The citywide approach may provide consistent expectations across a city. However, to avoid confusion given that other regulatory speeds are also still in effect, it is recommended that regulatory speed limit signs be installed at appropriate locations and intervals. At a minimum, regulatory signs should be placed anywhere a transition of speed occurs including at community boundaries, and when transitioning from major roads onto local streets. 8. Conduct a Follow-Up Assessment To know if any changes in speed limits have been effective, a follow-up assessment is required. The best practice begins with documenting existing conditions and then conducting annual assessments each year following the change. Be aware that small changes, especially in vehicle speeds, may be statistically significant but they may not be practically significant. The outcome of the assessment could prove that the changes in speed limits achieved the performance measures and the effort to match driver behavior with the lower speed limit was a success. On the other hand, if the outcome indicates that driver behavior was not changed, two possible courses of action are suggested. First, continue the experiment with lower speed limits but add more features to modify the driver’s perception of the road environment – for example, median refuge islands and curb extensions – and increase enforcement efforts. Second, revert to the previous statutory limit. 14 Page 49 of 130 III. Invest in Alternative Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Strategies If your city decides to take actions to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, you will need to consider two important items – (1) WHERE to make improvements and (2) WHAT strategies to invest in. However, research into pedestrian and bicycle safety suggests that traditional thinking about WHERE and WHAT is unlikely to yield positive results. WHERE to make Improvements: Traditionally, safety analysts would review their road systems and then focus their safety investments on locations with large numbers of priority crash types (Road Departure, Right Angle, etc.) However, after Minnesota adopted serious crashes (those involving severe injuries and fatalities) as the State’s safety performance measure, it was determined that this reactive approach of chasing after serious crashes around the system was not an effective strategy. Serious crashes were widely scattered and for the most part occurred at locations that did not have any prior serious crashes during the study period. It was concluded that the presence of one serious crash at a particular location was not a good predictor of a second serious crash. It appears that safety analysts focused on serious crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists face these same challenges: ▪ Serious pedestrian and bicycle crashes are widely scattered among cities in Minnesota ▪ 588 (69%) of Minnesota’s 856 cities had NO serious pedestrian and bicycle crashes during a 10- year study period (2011-2020). ▪ 228,000 (99%) of the approximately 230,000 locations in Minnesota’s crash mapping tool had NO serious pedestrian and bicycle crashes during the 10-year study period. ▪ Only six (0.7%) cities (Brooklyn Center, Duluth, St. Cloud, Columbia Heights, St. Paul, and Minneapolis) had two or more locations with multiple serious pedestrian and bicycle crashes during the 10-year study period. ▪ Only ONE location in the entire State (University Avenue at Northtown Drive in Blaine) had TWO pedestrian and bicycle crashes that resulted in fatalities during the study period. This information supports a conclusion that using a reactive approach based on prior serious crashes would not be effective in identifying high priority locations for safety investment. This information also supports the use of a proactive, systemic approach that is based on identifying the characteristics of the locations with serious pedestrian and bicycle crashes and then searching road systems for other locations with similar characteristics. Previous safety studies have identified several roadway characteristics as being over-represented at the locations with serious pedestrian and bicycle crashes, including: ▪ Streets with a MSA designation: Streets on the MSA system account for 3% of statewide road mileage but 26% of serious pedestrian and bicycle crashes. ▪ Intersection Traffic Control: Along MSA streets, more than 60% of serious pedestrian and bicycle crashes occur at intersections and almost 50% of these are controlled by traffic signals. ▪ Transit Stops: In Minnesota cities, approximately 80% of locations with a serious pedestrian and bicycle crash had a transit stop. All of this suggests that the determination of where to invest in safety improvements should be based on a systemic review of a city’s road system that is primarily focused on MSA streets and secondarily at signalized intersections with transit stops. 15 Page 50 of 130 WHAT strategies to invest in: The process of evaluating the dozens of potential safety strategies to address pedestrian and bicycle safety is often complicated by perceptions held by residents and elected officials that are based on their intuition, but are often contrary to the facts. A way to deal with the challenge of addressing these perceptions is for city staff to be aware of facts documented by research regarding the effectiveness of pedestrian and bicycle strategies and where on the spectrum of proven not effective to proven effective does each strategy fall. Examples of strategies proven not to be effective include: ▪ Marked Crosswalks: The addition of marked crosswalks alone, without more substantial roadway or traffic control treatments, has NOT been found to reduce pedestrian crash rates. ▪ Traffic Signals: Traffic signals are used to assign right of way to conflicting streams of traffic (vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles) at intersections. By themselves, traffic signals are not considered to be effective safety devices for vehicles, pedestrians or bicycles. Signalized intersections have the highest rate and severity of crashes among intersection traffic control devices and more than one-half of pedestrian and bicycle crashes in Minnesota occur at signalized intersections. ▪ Reduced Urban Speed Limits: There is no information in published research to support the notion that lowering urban speed limits either reduces actual operating speeds or serious crashes involving pedestrians and bicycles. MnDOT has conducted more than a dozen local studies and FHWA conducted a national study where speed limits were artificially lowered by changing the numbers on regulatory speed limit signs. In no case was driver behavior changed. Regarding the safety effect of lowering urban speed limits on serious pedestrian and bicycle crashes, it should be noted that each of the four states that border Minnesota have a 25 mph statutory urban speed limit but has a fatal pedestrian and bicycle crash rate that is 11% to 64% higher than Minnesota’s. ▪ On-road Bike Lanes: On-Road bike lanes have been deployed extensively around the country and in Minnesota but are not considered to be an effective safety strategy because research results are almost equally divided between locations where bike crashes increased versus locations where bike crashes decreased. Examples of strategies proven effective include: ▪ Sidewalks: Constructing sidewalks has been found to decrease “Walking in Roadway” pedestrian crashes by 50%- 90%. ▪ Median Crossing/Refuge Islands: Adding Median Crossing/ Refuge Islands has been found to reduce pedestrian and bicycle crashes by 39%-46%. Curb extensions have been found to reduce pedestrian and bicycle crashes by 39%-46%. ▪ Crosswalk lighting: Adding Crosswalk lighting has been found to reduce pedestrian and bicycle crashes by 33%-44%. Source: MnDOT 16 Page 51 of 130 ▪ Road Diets: “Road Diet” is a term used for the reallocation of roadway lanes and/or space to integrate features such as bike lanes or pedestrian refuge islands on existing roadways. A common roadway reconfiguration involves converting an undivided four-lane (two-way) road into a three-lane road made up of one through lane in each direction, a center two-way left turn lane and a shoulder/bike lane. Modifying roads from four lanes to two travel lanes with a left turn lane has been found to reduce vehicle crashes by 29%-46%. Safety effects on crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists associated with Road Diets are still being documented but positive benefits have been noted including: • Typically lower speeds due to one travel lane in each direction and no passing, • The reduction to a single travel lane in each direction eliminates the possibility of a “multiple-threat” crash (where a driver in one lane stops to yield to a pedestrian but the driver in the adjacent lane continues at speed because the other vehicle blocks the line of sight to the pedestrian) • The reallocation of space creates an opportunity to construct median refuge islands at pedestrian crossing locations. ▪ Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon: A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon system is a traffic control device that remains dark until a pushbutton is activated by a pedestrian, at which time the beacon flashes a sequence of amber warning followed by a red stop for vehicles. The system has been found to have a 97% compliance rate for vehicles stopping during the steady red beacon phase and a 69% reduction in vehicle-pedestrian crashes. ▪ Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon: A Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon is a dynamic warning device that is activated when a pedestrian pushes a button at the crosswalk. The system uses an irregular flash pattern similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles with a pulsing light source. Studies are still under way to document pedestrian and bicycle crash reductions but completed studies have found “yield to pedestrians” compliance rates ranging from 80% - 100% and these rates are four to five times higher than at standard beacons. ▪ Leading Pedestrian Interval: Use of a LPI extends the All-Red portion of the traffic signal cycle and provides the pedestrian walk indication two to three seconds ahead of the vehicle green, allowing pedestrians a head start and the ability to enter the crosswalk before right turning vehicles can turn into the crosswalk. Studies have found the LPI to reduce pedestrian crashes by up to 60%. ▪ Countdown Timers: Countdown Timers replace the traditional Walk/Don’t Walk pedestrian indications and are flashing timers which provide the number of seconds remaining during the pedestrian phase. Studies have found that converting from standard pedestrian signals to countdown timers was associated with up to a 25% reduction in pedestrian crashes. 17 Page 52 of 130 Addressing Citizen Concerns Creating an open dialogue with citizens is an important step in understanding perceived and actual safety issues of the public. The “Addressing Citizen Requests for Traffic Safety Concerns” Local Road Research Board Report 2017RIC05 from 2017 identified steps for addressing citizen concerns for safety. 1. Problem Identification – Record their concern and ask questions regarding pertinent details to best understand their issue. 2. Evaluation – Arrange for a site inspection and collect necessary data. Identify if there is an issue and what steps can be made to mitigate. If there is no issue, communicate the appropriate reasoning. 3. Response / Follow-up – If the evaluation takes more than a month, periodically update the citizen. If the decision is to make a change, document this change and understand your agencies processes. This report also examines things to make the public aware of surrounding speed and safety. ▪ Speed complaints are often the residents’ “perceived” safety concern rather than an “actual” safety concern. Collect data using a radar gun to determine if this is a perception or a reality. ▪ Speed humps/tables are larger issues involving more time and money to evaluate. They often do not affect speed between humps. ▪ A change in speed is not likely to affect the safety concern. If speed is the key issue, install a speed trailer to inform drivers of their speeds. ▪ Speed limits in neighborhoods are already likely at the state minimum based on law. ▪ Speed limit signs often advertise that a given speed is acceptable even though it is desired that drivers drive slower. ▪ Roadway narrowing to reduce speeds can be effective, but expensive. On-street parking can be a lower-cost solution. ▪ Often the speed offenders are people that live in the neighborhood. Encourage citizens to talk to their neighbors to have the discussion. ▪ Other measures to help reduce speed include posting yard signs or figures mentioning to slow down, and also increasing compliance patrols with the police department. 18 Page 53 of 130 Summary & Recommendation When considering the effects of vehicle speeds on public safety, pedestrian and bicyclist safety is always a primary concern. It is often difficult to pinpoint causes and identify the best countermeasures due to the rarity and randomness of these crashes. Minneapolis and St. Paul are the only communities in Minnesota that have enough serious pedestrian and bicycle crashes to obtain statistically reliable data to analyze the causes of crashes and potential mitigations. All other cities will need to rely on statewide summaries to indicate trends, causes and possible mitigation strategies. This analysis of serious statewide pedestrian and bicycle crashes found that the Municipal State Aid (MSA) system was more at risk than other city streets. The MSA system was found to have a serious pedestrian and bicycle crash density that is almost nine times higher than on other city streets. It is speculated that this higher risk is associated with typically wider streets, higher volumes and adjacent commercial development. This analysis also found that the almost half of serious pedestrian and bicycle crashes occurred at intersections, and almost half of these had traffic signal control. Police crash reports cited speed as a contributing factor in only four percent of serious pedestrian and bicycle crashes. The 85th percentile speed continues to be a reasonable approximation of the prevailing speed selected by drivers on local streets based on their perception of the road environment. However, this approach has been criticized, especially by pedestrian safety advocates in urban area because it does not directly consider pedestrians and bicycles. That critique is correct, but most city streets have speed limits based on statute and not the analysis of prevailing speeds. There is no evidence to suggest lowering speed limit will result in lower travel speeds. Reducing speed will require changes to the roadway environment and/or increased enforcement. However, speeds on local roads in some communities already lower than statutory limits lending credibility to a reduction in speed limits. Whenever possible local agencies should implement proven alternative strategies and modify the roadway environment to reduce travel speeds. Also, whenever possible speed limits should be reduced when documented travel speeds are less than the statutory limit. Prior to implementing a citywide reduction in speed limits, public outreach and a robust public involvement campaign should be implemented. This step is crucial to separate fact from perception and determine if residents and elected officials understand the likelihood of achieving a reduction in travel speeds. It is also important to determine if the community actually supports a change, or is there only a vocal minority. If a change is made, partnering with law enforcement is essential; while often challenging and unpopular a true reduction in speeds without modifications to the roadway environment will require increased enforcement. If a speed change is desired, it is recommended that the agency install regulatory signs instead of gateway signing alone. Regulatory signs should be installed whenever speed zones change, and at community boundaries. The suggested system-based speed limits include: ▪ Local Residential Streets 25 mph ▪ Urban Collectors 30 mph ▪ Urban Minor Arterials 35 mph ▪ Multi-lane Suburban Minor Arterials 40 mph Changing speeds limits is new to Minnesota, and there is insufficient data to support a conclusion as to whether or not it will improve pedestrian safety. It is strongly encouraged that communities track their results so additional future evaluations and recommendations can be performed. 19 Page 54 of 130 APPENDIX A: Full Language of the Statute Minnesota Statutes, Section 169.14 169.14 SPEED LIMITS, ZONES; RADAR. Subdivision 1.Duty to drive with due care. No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions. Every driver is responsible for becoming and remaining aware of the actual and potential hazards then existing on the highway and must use due care in operating a vehicle. In every event speed shall be so restricted as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care. Subd. 1a.License revocation for extreme speed. The driver’s license of a person who violates any speed limit established in this section, by driving in excess of 100 miles per hour, is revoked for six months under section 171.17, or for a longer minimum period of time applicable under section 169A.53, 169A.54, or 171.174. Subd. 2.Speed limits. (a) Where no special hazard exists the following speeds shall be lawful, but any speeds in excess of such limits shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful; except that the speed limit within any municipality shall be a maximum limit and any speed in excess thereof shall be unlawful: (1) 30 miles per hour in an urban district; (2) 65 miles per hour on noninterstate expressways, as defined in section 160.02, subdivision 18b, and noninterstate freeways, as defined in section 160.02, subdivision 19; (3) 55 miles per hour in locations other than those specified in this section; (4) 70 miles per hour on interstate highways outside the limits of any urbanized area with a population of greater than 50,000 as defined by order of the commissioner of transportation; (5) 65 miles per hour on interstate highways inside the limits of any urbanized area with a population of greater than 50,000 as defined by order of the commissioner of transportation; (6) 10 miles per hour in alleys; (7) 25 miles per hour in residential roadways if adopted by the road authority having jurisdiction over the residential roadway; and (8) 35 miles per hour in a rural residential district if adopted by the road authority having jurisdiction over the rural residential district. (b) A speed limit adopted under paragraph (a), clause (7), is not effective unless the road authority has erected signs designating the speed limit and indicating the beginning and end of the residential roadway on which the speed limit applies. (c) A speed limit adopted under paragraph (a), clause (8), is not effective unless the road authority has erected signs designating the speed limit and indicating the beginning and end of the rural residential district for the roadway on which the speed limit applies. (d) Notwithstanding section 609.0331 or 609.101 or other law to the contrary, a person who violates a speed limit established in this subdivision, or a speed limit designated on an appropriate sign under subdivision 4, 5, 5b, 5c, or 5e, by driving 20 miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable speed limit, is assessed an additional surcharge equal to the amount of the fine imposed for the speed violation, but not less than $25. Subd. 2a.Increased speed limit when passing. Notwithstanding subdivision 2, the speed limit is increased by 10 miles per hour over the posted speed limit when the driver: (1) is on a two-lane highway having one lane for each direction of travel; (2) is on a highway with a posted speed limit that is equal to or higher than 55 miles per hour; (3) is overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction of travel; and (4) meets the requirements in section 169.18. Subd. 3.Reduced speed required. 20 Page 55 of 130 (a) The driver of any vehicle shall, consistent with the requirements, drive at an appropriate reduced speed when approaching or passing an authorized emergency vehicle stopped with emergency lights flashing on any street or highway, when approaching and crossing an intersection or railway grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions. (b) A person who fails to reduce speed appropriately when approaching or passing an authorized emergency vehicle stopped with emergency lights flashing on a street or highway shall be assessed an additional surcharge equal to the amount of the fine imposed for the speed violation, but not less than $25. Subd. 4.Establishment of zones by commissioner. On determining upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that any speed set forth in this section is greater or less than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist on any trunk highway or upon any part thereof, the commissioner may erect appropriate signs designating a reasonable and safe speed limit thereat, which speed limit shall be effective when such signs are erected. Any speeds in excess of such limits shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful; except that any speed limit within any municipality shall be a maximum limit and any speed in excess thereof shall be unlawful. On determining upon that basis that a part of the trunk highway system outside a municipality should be a zone of maximum speed limit, the commissioner may establish that part as such a zone by erecting appropriate signs showing the beginning and end of the zone, designating a reasonable and safe speed therefor, which may be different than the speed set forth in this section, and that it is a zone of maximum speed limit. The speed so designated by the commissioner within any such zone shall be a maximum speed limit, and speed in excess of such limit shall be unlawful. The commissioner may in the same manner from time to time alter the boundary of such a zone and the speed limit therein or eliminate such zone. Subd. 4a. [Repealed, 1997 c 143 s 20] Subd. 5.Zoning within local area. When local authorities believe that the existing speed limit upon any street or highway, or part thereof, within their respective jurisdictions and not a part of the trunk highway system is greater or less than is reasonable or safe under existing conditions, they may request the commissioner to authorize, upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, the erection of appropriate signs designating what speed is reasonable and safe, and the commissioner may authorize the erection of appropriate signs designating a reasonable and safe speed limit thereat, which speed limit shall be effective when such signs are erected. Any speeds in excess of these speed limits shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful; except that any speed limit within any municipality shall be a maximum limit and any speed in excess thereof shall be unlawful. Alteration of speed limits on streets and highways shall be made only upon authority of the commissioner except as provided by law. Subd. 5a.Speed zoning in school zone; surcharge. (a) Local authorities may establish a school speed limit within a school zone of a public or nonpublic school upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation as prescribed by the commissioner of transportation. The establishment of a school speed limit on any trunk highway shall be with the consent of the commissioner of transportation. Such school speed limits shall be in effect when children are present, going to or leaving school during opening or closing hours or during school recess periods. The school speed limit shall not be lower than 15 miles per hour and shall not be more than 30 miles per hour below the established speed limit on an affected street or highway. (b) The school speed limit shall be effective upon the erection of appropriate signs designating the speed and indicating the beginning and end of the reduced speed zone. Any speed in excess of such posted school speed limit is unlawful. All such signs shall be erected by the local authorities on those streets and highways under their respective jurisdictions and by the commissioner of transportation on trunk highways. (c) For the purpose of this subdivision, “school zone” means that section of a street or highway which abuts the grounds of a school where children have access to the street or highway from the school property or where an established 21 Page 56 of 130 school crossing is located provided the school advance sign prescribed by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices adopted by the commissioner of transportation pursuant to section 169.06 is in place. All signs erected by local authorities to designate speed limits in school zones shall conform to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (d) Notwithstanding section 609.0331 or 609.101 or other law to the contrary, a person who violates a speed limit established under this subdivision is assessed an additional surcharge equal to the amount of the fine imposed for the violation, but not less than $25. Subd. 5b.Segment in urban district. When any segment of at least a quarter-mile in distance of any city street, municipal state-aid street, or town road on which a speed limit in excess of 30 miles per hour has been established pursuant to an engineering and traffic investigation by the commissioner meets the definition of “urban district” as defined in section 169.011, subdivision 90, the governing body of the city or town may by resolution declare the segment to be an urban district and may establish on the segment the speed limit for urban districts prescribed in subdivision 2. The speed limit so established shall be effective upon the erection of appropriate signs designating the speed and indicating the beginning and end of the segment on which the speed limit is established, and any speed in excess of such posted limits shall be unlawful. A copy of the resolution shall be transmitted to the commissioner at least 10 days prior to the erection of the signs. Subd. 5c.Speed zoning in alleyway. Local authorities may regulate speed limits for alleyways as defined in section 169.011 based on their own engineering and traffic investigations. Alleyway speed limits established at other than 10 miles per hour shall be effective when proper signs are posted. Subd. 5d.Speed limit in work zone when workers present. (a) Notwithstanding subdivision 2 and subject to subdivision 3, the speed limit on a road having an established speed limit of 50 miles per hour or greater is adjusted to 45 miles per hour in a work zone when (1) at least one lane or portion of a lane of traffic is closed in either direction, and (2) workers are present. A speed in excess of the adjusted speed limit is unlawful. (b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to a segment of road in which: (1) positive barriers are placed between workers and the traveled portion of the highway; (2) the work zone is in place for less than 24 hours; (3) a different speed limit for the work zone is determined by the road authority following an engineering and traffic investigation and based on accepted engineering practice; or (4) a different speed limit for the work zone is established by the road authority under paragraph (c). (c) The commissioner, on trunk highways and temporary trunk highways, and local authorities, on streets and highways under their jurisdiction, may authorize the use of reduced maximum speed limits in work zones when workers are present, without an engineering and traffic investigation required. The work zone speed limit must not reduce the speed limit on the affected street or highway by more than: (1) 20 miles per hour on a street or highway having an established speed limit of 55 miles per hour or greater; and (2) 15 miles per hour on a street or highway having an established speed limit of 50 miles per hour or less. (d) A work zone speed limit under paragraph (c) is effective on erection of appropriate regulatory speed limit signs. The signs must be removed or covered when they are not required. A speed in excess of the posted work zone speed limit is unlawful. (e) For any speed limit under this subdivision, a road authority shall erect signs identifying the speed limit and indicating the beginning and end of the speed limit zone. Subd. 5e.Speed limit on park road. The political subdivision with authority over a park may establish a speed limit on a road located within the park. A speed limit established under this subdivision on a trunk highway is effective only with the commissioner’s approval. A speed limit established under this subdivision must be based on an engineering and traffic investigation prescribed by 22 Page 57 of 130 the commissioner of transportation and must not be lower than 20 miles per hour, and no speed limit established under this subdivision may reduce existing speed limits by more than 15 miles per hour. A speed limit established under this subdivision is effective on the erection of appropriate signs designating the speed limit and indicating the beginning and end of the reduced speed zone. Any speed in excess of the posted speed is unlawful. Subd. 5f.Speed limits on certain rural residential districts. (a) A rural residential district existing and lawfully signed before August 1, 2009, continues to qualify as a rural residential district. (b) A rural residential district existing and lawfully signed before August 1, 2009, is subject to the speed limit signed before August 1, 2009. [See Note.] Subd. 5g.St. Louis County Road 128. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in this section, the speed limit on St. Louis County Road 128 in Eagles Nest Township between marked Trunk Highway 169 and County Road 989 is 40 miles per hour. The county engineer must erect appropriate signs displaying the 40 miles per hour speed limit. Subd. 5h.Speed limits on city streets A city may establish speed limits for city streets under the city’s jurisdiction other than the limits provided in subdivision 2 without conducting an engineering and traffic investigation. This subdivision does not apply to town roads, county highways, or trunk highways in the city. A city that establishes speed limits pursuant to this section must implement speed limit changes in a consistent and understandable manner. The city must erect appropriate signs to display the speed limit. A city that uses the authority under this subdivision must develop procedures to set speed limits based on the city’s safety, engineering, and traffic analysis. At a minimum, the safety, engineering, and traffic analysis must consider national urban speed limit guidance and studies, local traffic crashes, and methods to effectively communicate the change to the public. Subd. 6. [Repealed, Ex1971 c 27 s 49] Subd. 6a.Work zone speed limit violations. A person convicted of operating a motor vehicle in violation of a speed limit in a work zone, or any other provision of this section while in a work zone, shall be required to pay a fine of $300. This fine is in addition to the surcharge under section 357.021, subdivision 6. Subd. 7.Burden of proof. The provisions of this chapter declaring speed limitation shall not be construed to relieve the plaintiff in any civil action from the burden of proving negligence on the part of the defendant as the proximate cause of an accident. Subd. 8.Minimum speeds. On determining upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that a speed at least as great as, or in excess of, a specified and determined minimum is necessary to the reasonable and safe use of any trunk highway or portion thereof, the commissioner may erect appropriate signs specifying the minimum speed on such highway or portion thereof. The minimum speed shall be effective when such signs are erected. Any speeds less than the posted minimum speeds shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful. Subd. 9.Standards of evidence. In any prosecution in which the rate of speed of a motor vehicle is relevant, evidence of the speed of a motor vehicle as indicated on the speedometer thereof shall be admissible on a showing that a vehicle is regularly used in traffic law enforcement and that the speedometer thereon is regularly and routinely tested for accuracy and a record of the 23 Page 58 of 130 results of said tests kept on file by the agency having control of said vehicle. Evidence as to the speed indicated on said speedometer shall be prima facie evidence that the said vehicle was, at the time said reading was observed, traveling at the rate of speed so indicated; subject to correction by the amount of error, if any, shown to exist by the test made closest in time to the time of said reading. Records of speedometer tests kept in the regular course of operations of any law enforcement agency shall be admissible without further foundation, as to the results of said tests. Such records shall be available to the defendant upon demand. Nothing herein shall be construed to preclude or interfere with the cross examination or impeachment of evidence of rate of speed as indicated by speedometer readings, pursuant to the Rules of Evidence. Subd. 10.Radar; speed-measuring device; standards of evidence. (a) In any prosecution in which the rate of speed of a motor vehicle is relevant, evidence of the speed as indicated on radar or other speed-measuring device is admissible in evidence, subject to the following conditions: (1) the officer operating the device has sufficient training to properly operate the equipment; (2) the officer testifies as to the manner in which the device was set up and operated; (3) the device was operated with minimal distortion or interference from outside sources; and (4) the device was tested by an accurate and reliable external mechanism, method, or system at the time it was set up. (b) Records of tests made of such devices and kept in the regular course of operations of any law enforcement agency are admissible in evidence without further foundation as to the results of the tests. The records shall be available to a defendant upon demand. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to preclude or interfere with cross examination or impeachment of evidence of the rate of speed as indicated on the radar or speed-measuring device. Subd. 11.Handheld traffic radar. (a) Law enforcement agencies that use handheld radar units shall establish operating procedures to reduce the operator’s exposure to microwave radiation. (b) The procedures, at a minimum, must require: (1) that the operator turn the unit off when it is not in use; (2) if the unit has a standby mode, that the operator use this mode except when measuring a vehicle’s speed; (3) that the operator not allow the antenna to rest against the operator’s body while it is in operation; and (4) that the operator always point the antenna unit away from the operator and any other person in very close proximity to the unit. Subd. 12.Radar jammer. For purposes of this section, “radar jammer” means any instrument, device, or equipment designed or intended for use with a vehicle or otherwise to jam or interfere in any manner with a speed-measuring device operated by a peace officer. No person shall sell, offer for sale, use, or possess any radar jammer in this state. History: (2720-178) 1937 c 464 s 28; 1939 c 430 s 6; 1947 c 428 s 12,13; 1955 c 802 s 1,2; 1957 c 580 s 1; 1963 c 843 s 1-4; 1969 c 623 s 1; 1975 c 53 s 1; 1975 c 363 s 1,2; 1976 c 166 s 7; 1979 c 60 s 1; 1980 c 498 s 4; 1984 c 417 s 24,25; 1986 c 444; 1987 c 319 s 1; 1991 c 298 art 4 s 9; 1993 c 26 s 1; 1993 c 61 s 1; 1994 c 635 art 1 s 12; 1994 c 640 s 1; 1994 c 645 s 1; 1995 c 118 s 1; 1995 c 265 art 2 s 18; 1996 c 455 art 1 s 5,6; 1997 c 143 s 9-11; 1997 c 159 art 2 s 20,21; 1999 c 44 s 1; 2001 c 213 s 9; 1Sp2003 c 19 art 2 s 27; 1Sp2005 c 6 art 3 s 41,42; 2008 c 287 art 1 s 45; 2009 c 56 s 4,5; 2009 c 165 s 1; 2010 c 356 s 1; 2014 c 312 art 11 s 7,8; 1Sp2017 c 3 art 3 s 48; 1Sp2019 c 3 art 3 s 34,35 NOTE: Subdivision 5f, paragraph (b), as added by Laws 2009, chapter 56, section 5, expires when the speed limit signs erected before August 1, 2009, are replaced. Laws 2009, chapter 56, section 5, the effective date. Official Publication of the State of Minnesota Revisor of Statutes 24 Page 59 of 130 APPENDIX B: Case Studies - Category Speed Limit City of Minneapolis: The City of Minneapolis utilized the category speed limit approach: 20 mph for minor roads and 25 mph for major roads under their jurisdiction. After the new Minnesota State Statute was passed, the City of Minneapolis passed an ordinance giving the city engineer the authority to set the speed limits. Minneapolis decided to change their speeds limits based on a technical analysis of existing data and other national and local reports. The city had a goal to make itself a safer place for the walking and biking community. Along with these goals, Minneapolis used the collected 50th percentile speeds as well. Once they decided on a speed limit of 20 mph on minor roadways and 25 mph on major roadways, the education process began. The city created an campaign to educate the community. They also teamed up with the City of St. Paul to do joint events in the community to educate the public on the new speed limit change. The city also changed the signs in Minneapolis and added gateway signs that the city worked with MnDOT to create. There is still some education left to be done, and after a few years of these speed changes they hope to reevaluate to see how the speed limit change has impacted crash and speed data. City of St. Paul They City of St Paul conducted a technical evaluation to determine speed limits on city streets (see St. Paul Speed Limit Evaluation, March 12, 2020). The effort included collaboration with the city of Minneapolis as well as other internal and external partners including the City Attorney’s office, St. Paul Police, City Planning and Economic Development, MnDOT, Ramsey County, Metro Transit, and various other Public Works Divisions. Based on their efforts, the city established that principal and minor arterial streets are major streets and speed limits will generally be set at 25 mph. However, they were also evaluated to determine if a higher limit is appropriate based on the “context and design.” Collector streets were also identified as major streets and would generally be 25 mph. However, collector streets were also evaluated to determine if a lower limit was appropriate, again based on “context and design.” Local streets were considered to be minor streets and speed limits were set at 20 mph, however they were also evaluated to determine if a higher speed limit was appropriate. City of St. Louis Park: The City of St. Louis Park also took the approach of implementing the category speed approach limits. When the Minnesota State Statute was changed the public and city council pressured the engineering staff to make a change. One thing that St. Louis Park did that other cities did not, is when they went to pass the ordinance, they had their research and recommendation already done. Once the city passed the ordinance, the council recommended that the engineering staff evaluate in more detail some specific locations. They took an extremely data heavy approach for evaluation. The city evaluated their speed data and their crash data. The traffic study that they conducted evaluated the medium, average, and 85th percentile of all their streets and then they broke it down by low, medium and high traffic roads. They also looked at what they had set forth in their 2040 comprehensive plan national standards and the speed limit goal they have for the city. After evaluating all these criteria, they recommended speeds of 20 mph on local neighborhood streets, 25 mph on connecting streets, and 30 mph on select streets/segments. After speed change is fully implemented, a traffic speed study will be conducted to evaluate the effects of the new speed change. City of St. Anthony Village St. Anthony Village adopted a city-wide speed limit of 25 mph on local streets. Because St. Anthony borders Minneapolis, city officials faced pressure from the public and elected officials to review their speed limits. It was decided that 20 mph (adopted by Minneapolis) was too slow so the city adopted a citywide 25 mph limit. The city changed and updated speed limit signs and added gateway signs to notify drivers as they enter the city limit. 25 Page 60 of 130 City of Falcon Heights The City of Falcon Heights also adopted a city-wide speed limit. After analyzing past speed studies, the city concluded that they didn’t have a speed issue. However, pressure from the council resulted in a speed limit change anyway. The engineering staff employed state statute Section 169.14, Subd. 2.7b., which allowed them to change their local streets to 25 mph without conducting an engineering study or establishing a process. The city installed regulatory speed limit signs at gateways and key entry points into the city. This approach was appealing to the city because it was an easy and inexpensive option. City of Shoreview The City of Shoreview has taken the approach of leaving their speed limits the same. Unlike St. Paul and Minneaplis, speed limits in Shoreview were developed much more recently so they have implemented design and layouts that are reflected in the speed limit that is posted. The staff collected traffic speeds around the city and found that the 85th percentile was in the 22-28 mph range. On top of the design factors, the City of Shoreview has a good deal of speed and crash data that reinforces the decision to keep their local speed limit 30 mph. The council also looked at the two other options of setting city-wide speed limits or a category approach. On the advice of the engineering staff the council decided not to change any of the local speed limits. City of Edina Edina adopted a city-wide speed limit of 25 mph on local streets. This initiative is part of a comprehensive strategy to address speeding and pedestrian safety. It will complement other efforts including minimizing roadway widths, constructing new multi-modal infrastructure and improving pedestrian crossings where warranted. Seattle Department of Transportation: Speed Limit Case Studies Article Summary: The Seattle Department of Transportation evaluated how placing speed limit signs closer together and changing the speed limit effected speeds. The SDOT evaluated five locations throughout Seattle. Before the change the speed limit was set to 30 mph and signs were spaced out 1 to 1.5 miles apart. At the new locations the speed was changed to 20 mph spaced at ¼ mile intervals. The SDOT estimate that cost of the sign installation is about $4,000 to $5,000 per mile; this cost includes design, materials and labor. The results from the study showed that there was a significant reduction in 40+ mph speeds. The next steps were to continue to implement the speed limit reduction and have new speed limits done by May 2021. 26 Page 61 of 130 APPENDIX C: RESEARCH FACT SHEETS 0.79 Minnesota Wisconsin North Dakota South Dakota Iowa 1.05 0.88 0.89 1.3 Fatal Ped-Bike Crash Rates Surrounding States 2021-2018 Highlights • During the period 2010 through 2018, Minnesota averaged 45 fatal Ped + Bike crashes per year. • Normalized for population, this results in Minnesota having a fatal Ped + Bike crash rate of 0.79 fatal Ped + Bike crashes per 100,000 population. • The states that border Minnesota – North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Wisconsin have fatal Ped + Bike crash rates that range from to 1.3/100,0000.88 population. • The fatal Ped + Bike crash rates in the surrounding states are 11- 64% higher than the rate in Minnesota. • It’s also important to note that every one of these surrounding states has a statutory urban speed limit (25 mph) that is lower than Minnesota’s (30 mph). • The fact that all the surrounding states have lower urban speed limits and higher Ped + Bike fatality rates suggests that it is NOT reasonable to expect that lowering urban speed limits in Minnesota will be effective in reducing our Ped + Bike fatality rate. Year MN Iowa N. D. S. D. Wis. 2010 44 26 23 13 64 2011 44 30 11 8 67 2012 47 24 6 2 60 2013 39 24 1 7 48 2014 21 23 15 11 48 2015 52 32 8 7 73 2016 66 34 12 8 63 2017 44 30 6 10 68 2018 51 29 8 10 60 Total 408 252 90 76 551 Average 45 28 10 8 61 Population 5.7 M 3.2M 0.8M 0.9M 5.9M Rate 0.79 0.88 1.3 0.89 1.05 27 Fatal Ped+Bike Crashes/100,000 Population 1. Pa g e 6 2 o f 1 3 0 Serious Ped & Bike Crashes (2016-2020) in Minnesota – A Perspective System Fatal Crashes Serious Crashes Serious Speed Related Serious Ped & Bike Serious Speed Related Ped & Bike Miles State 5 year Total Annual Density 816 163 0.01 2,641 528 0.04 647 129 0.01 255 51 0.004 17 3 0.0003 11,846 County 5 year Total Annual Density 616 123 0.003 3,406 681 0.02 695 139 0.003 390 78 0.002 19 4 0.00008 44,958 City 5 year Total Annual Density 228 46 0.002 2,298 460 0.02 482 96 0.004 765 153 0.007 30 6 0.0003 22,373 Total 5 year Total Annual Density 1,763 353 0.002 8,966 1,793 0.01 2,014 403 0.003 1,466 293 0.002 70 14 0.0001 142,976 Highlights • Minnesota’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) has adopted serious crashes (Fatal + A Injury) as the State’s Safety Performance measure. • The SHSP documents the results of a data driven analysis of crashes and identifes crashes involving Pedestrians and Bicyclists in a comprehensive list of Safety Focus Areas since these crashes account for approximately 16% of all serious crashes. • More than 50% of serious Ped + Bike crashes occur on city streets. However, it should be noted that these crashes are rare – the crash density is 0.007 Serious Ped + Bike crashes/miles/year. • Speed related Ped + Bike crashes are even rarer – law enforcement cited speed as a contributing factor in only 4% of Serious Ped + Bike crashes. • Cities with a population over 5,000 typically have about 200 miles of city streets. With the crash densities noted in the table, typical cities can expect 1.4 serious Ped + Bike crashes per year and one serious speed related Ped + Bike crashes every 16 years. Note: Crash numbers in the columns do not add up to the values shown in the bottom row – the few crashes along almost 64,000 miles of township roads were omitted in order to simplify the table. 28 Pa g e 6 3 o f 1 3 0 Distribution of Serious (K+A) 2011-2020 Ped + Bike Crashes 600 500 400 Number of Cities 300 200 100 588 197 17 12 5 1 4 0 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5+ Serious Ped + Bike Crashes/Year1 Highlights • During the 10-year period 2011 thru 2020 there were a total of 2,282 serious (fatal + serious injuries) crashes involving pedestrians and bikes. • The 2,282 serious Ped + Bike crashes account for approximately 15% of all serious crashes during that 10-year period. • The majority of all serious crashes occur on rural roads in greater Minnesota. However, practically all (99%) of serious Ped + Bike crashes occur in cities. • Serious Ped + Bike crashes are not evenly distributed among Minnesota’s 856 cities. - 588 cities (69%) had no serious Ped + Bike crashes. - 197 cities (23%) had an annual average between zero and one serious Ped + Bike crashes. - 67% of serious Ped + Bike crashes occurred in the Minneapolis – St. Paul Metro area. -Four cities – Duluth, Rochester, St. Paul, and Minneapolis accounted for 40% of all serious Ped + Bike Crashes. -Two cities -St. Paul (250) and Minneapolis (580) accounted for 36% of all serious Ped + Bike Crashes. 1. See Appendix. ___ for the city by city listing of serious Ped + Bike crashes. 29 Pa g e 6 4 o f 1 3 0 Speed & Speed Limit Facts/Myths – Highlights Fatalities Based on Speed of Vehicle 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% A pedestrian’s chance of death if hit by a motor vehicle 90% 20 ml/h 30 ml/h 40 ml/h City of Minneapolis UK DOT MnDOT Speed Zoning Studies Study Location Before After Change+/-MPH 85% Before After Change MPH TH 65 Speed Limit 40 Speed Limit 30 -10 34 34 0 TH 65 Speed Limit 50 Speed Limit 40 -10 44 45 +1 Anoka CSAH 1 Speed Limit 45 Speed Limit 40 -5 48 50 +2 Anoka CSAH 24 Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit 45 +15 49 50 +1 Anoka CSAH 51 Speed Limit 40 Speed Limit 45 +5 45 46 +1 Hennepin CSAH 4 Speed Limit 50 Speed Limit 40 -10 52 51 -1 Noble Ave Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit 35 +5 37 40 +3 62nd Ave N Speed Limit 35 Speed Limit 30 -5 37 37 0 Miss. St. Speed Limit 30 Speed Limit 35 +5 39 40 +1 • It appears that supporters of lowering urban speed limits in Minnesota justify their actions based on one fact and one myth. • Research supports the notion that collisions with Peds and Bikes are usually less severe at lower impact speeds (see nearby bar chart). • The key point is the speeds indicated in the chart are impact speeds (as determined by crash reconstruction) and not speed limits. • The myth is that simply changing the numbers on a regulatory sign or adopting lower urban speed limits has ever resulted in a significant number of drivers reducing their operating speed. • In fact, the research is absolutely consistent- not a single case is documented where lowering posted speed limits has successfully changed driver behavior. 30 Pa g e 6 5 o f 1 3 0 Speed & Speed Limit Facts/Myths – Highlights Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Speed Study - Boston, MA Speed Before 30 MPH Limit After 25 MPH Limit Change 50th percentile 24.8 24.8 0 85th percentile 31.0 31.0 0 +25 MPH 47.9% 46.9% -2% +30 MPH 18.2% 18.1% -0.5% Speed Profile on Local Streets Wisconsin Vs. Minnesota Roadway Width Average 85% pe (MP rcentile Speed H) Feet River Falls, WI Woodbury, MN 30 32 32 32 33 32 36 31 34 40 34 34 42 34 36 The FHWA conducted a national study with over 100 sites in 22 states where speed limits were changed by 5 to 20 mph. The report concluded that dif erences in actual speeds were less than 2 mph and were NOT related to the amount the posted speed limit was changed. Over the years, MnDOT has conducted a number of experiments in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro area. In each case, local governments requested changing the speed limit and, in each case, MnDOT agreed to a temporary change, to conduct periodic speed surveys and of ered local agencies the opportunity to apply as much enforcement as they saw ft. The results of the speed surveys (see table) show that 85% speeds were virtually unchanged, and it was concluded that merely changing the number on the regulatory signs did NOT change driver behavior. Two studies were found that document the effect of lower city wide urban speed limits. • The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety documented the effect of Boston, MA lowering their urban speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph. The study (see nearby table) found that changing the speed limit had NO effect on driver behavior - the average speed (25 mph) and 85th percentile speed (31mph) did NOT change. • A speed study was conducted on local streets in Woodbury, MN (statutory 30 mph limit) and River Falls, WI (statutory 25 mph limit). (See nearby table) The results indicate that average 85th percentile speeds are similar despite the different statutory speed limit. 31 Pa g e 6 6 o f 1 3 0 Speed & Speed Limit Facts/Myths – Highlights Total TH. Co. MSA Municipal Total 2,389 419 18% 694 28% 613 26% 441 18% At Intersection 1,235 52% 177 42% 358 52% 380 62% 230 52% At Signal 591 47% 108 61% 209 58% 185 49% 39 17% At Stopsign 300 24% 23 13% 69 19% 89 23% 101 44% Fail to Yield 242 11% 24 6% 69 11% 77 14% 46 12% Distracted 168 8% 37 9% 56 9% 39 7% 29 7% Careless/ Reckless 120 5% 18 4% 33 5% 18 3% 32 8% Fail to Obey Signal/Sign 10 1% 1 0.2% 1 0.2% 3 0.6% 4 1% Speeding 29 1% 10 2% 4 0.6% 7 1% 4 1% Mileage 141,957 11,678 8% 44,589 31% 3,734 3% 19,222 14% Serious Crash Density 0.0018 0.0037 0.0016 0.017 0.002 Characteristics of Serious (Fatal + Serious Injury) Ped+Bike Crashes Serious Ped+Bike Crashes In Minnesota, all crashes involving fatalities and injuries are investigated by law enforcement officers and injury results are documented in crash reports that are submitted to the Department of Public Safety. Information documented in crash reports includes: location, date/time, level of injury for those involved, physical condition for those involved, roadway condition and characteristics, actions of drivers/peds/bikes and presence of traffic control devices. During the 10-year period 2011 through 2020 there was a total of 2,491 serious (Fatal & Serious Injuries) Ped & Bike crashes of which 2,389 occurred on public streets/roads/highways. (The remaining crashes occurred of system - primarily in private parking lots). A review of Minnesota’s crash records system revealed the following facts about characteristics and factors associated with serious Ped+Bike crashes. - A plurality of serious Ped+Bike crashes occur on city streets (44%) and a majority of these occur on the Municipal State Aid (MSA) system. - One-half of serious Ped+Bike crashes occur at intersections and the range is 42% along highways to 62% along the MSA system. - Of the intersection related crashes, 47% are controlled by traffic signals (61% for highways and 17% for municipal streets) and 24% by STOP signs (13% for highways and 44% for municipal streets). Source: MnDOT CMAT 2011-2020 32 Pa g e 6 7 o f 1 3 0 Characteristics of Serious (Fatal + Serious Injury) Ped + Bike Crashes Distribution of Serious Ped+Bike Crashes by System HIGHLIGHTS Key 60 50 System Crashes Miles 44% 40 % 31% 30 28% 25% 19% 17%20 16% 14% 10 8% 3% 0 The investigations of the serious Ped+Bike crashes reported that in more than one half of these crashes no particular action by the drivers involved could be identified that clearly contributed to the crash. For the remaining crashes, the most common actions by drivers that did contribute to serious Ped+Bike crashes includes: Failure to yield -11% (6% on highways to 14% on MSAS) Distracted -8% (7% on city streets to 9% on county roads) Careless/reckless -5% (3% on MSAS to *% on muni-streets) Failure to obey signal/sign -1% (0.2% on highways to 1% on muni-streets) St a t e Hi g h w a y s Co u n t y Hi g h w a y s Ci t y T o t a l MS A S Mu n i c i p a l Serious Ped+Bike Crash Density .0018 .018 .016 .014 .012 .010 .008 .006 .004 .002 .0037 .0016 .0047 .017 .002 Cr a s h e s / M i l e / Y e a r Speeding -1% (0.6% on county roads to 2% on highway) Contributing factors were reviewed for serious Ped+Bike crashes in Minneapolis and St. Paul because these two cities account for 36% of all Ped+Bike crashes and they are leading the initiative to lower urban speed limits. The results in Minneapolis and St. Paul closely match the statewide distribution -fail to yield and distracted were the two most common driver behaviors. However, speeding was twice the statewide average - 2% in each city. Serious Ped+Bike crashes are not evenly distributed across Minnesota’s system of highways and streets. A plurality of serious Ped+Bike crashes occur along city streets (44%) and more than one-half of these crashes occur along the MSA system. To account for dif erences in mileage among the dif erent roadway jurisdictions, crash density was computed (serious Ped+Bike crashes/mile/year). City streets have a higher crash density (0.0047) than state highways or county roads, and the fraction of city streets on the MSAS have the highest crash density (0.017), which is more than nine times the statewide total. St a t e To t a l St a t e Hi g h w a y s Co u n t y Sy s t e m Ci t y T o t a l MS A S Mu n i c i p a l 33 Pa g e 6 8 o f 1 3 0 Page 69 of 130 Page 70 of 130 Page 71 of 130 Page 72 of 130 Page 73 of 130 Page 74 of 130 Page 75 of 130 Page 76 of 130 Page 77 of 130 Page 78 of 130 Page 79 of 130 Page 80 of 130 Page 81 of 130 Page 82 of 130 Page 83 of 130 Page 84 of 130 Page 85 of 130 Page 86 of 130 Page 87 of 130 Page 88 of 130 Page 89 of 130 Page 90 of 130 Page 91 of 130 Page 92 of 130 Page 93 of 130 Page 94 of 130 Page 95 of 130 Page 96 of 130 Page 97 of 130 Page 98 of 130 Page 99 of 130 Page 100 of 130 Page 101 of 130 Page 102 of 130 Page 103 of 130 Page 104 of 130 Page 105 of 130 Page 106 of 130 Page 107 of 130 Page 108 of 130 Page 109 of 130 Page 110 of 130 Page 111 of 130 Page 112 of 130 Page 113 of 130 Page 114 of 130 Page 115 of 130 Page 116 of 130 Page 117 of 130 Page 118 of 130 Page 119 of 130 Page 120 of 130 Page 121 of 130 Page 122 of 130 Page 123 of 130 Page 124 of 130 Page 125 of 130 Page 126 of 130 Page 127 of 130 Page 128 of 130 Page 129 of 130 Page 130 of 130