HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.06.25 Work Session Packet
AGENDA
Council Work Session
Meeting
5:30 PM - Monday, January 6, 2025
Farmington City Hall, Conf Rm 170
Page
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVE AGENDA
3. DISCUSSION ITEMS
3.1. Annual Organizational Matters
Review the annual organizational matters and make appointments to
committees and assignments for 2025.
Agenda Item: Annual Organizational Matters - Pdf
2 - 27
3.2. Speed Limit Plan and Policy
Discussion only
Agenda Item: Speed Limit Plan and Policy - Pdf
28 - 62
4. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE UPDATE
5. CITY ADMINISTRATOR UPDATE
6. ADJOURN
Page 1 of 62
COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator
From: Shirley Buecksler, City Clerk
Department: Administration
Subject: Annual Organizational Matters
Meeting: Council Work Session - Jan 06 2025
INTRODUCTION:
Annually, at their first meeting of the year, the City Council addresses organizational matters for the
upcoming year.
DISCUSSION:
State law requires that the City Council address annual organizational matters during its first regular
meeting of the year to make certain designations and appointments. Council has traditionally taken
this time to approve the following actions:
1. Acting Mayor
a. Council By-Laws provide that an Acting Mayor be appointed on a rotating basis in the
absence of the Mayor. According to the By-Laws, the Acting Mayor shall be selected
as follows:
i. Even Numbered Year - Member serving fourth year of term who received the
second most votes when elected.
ii. Odd Numbered Year (2025) - Member serving third year of term who
received the most votes when elected.
b. Councilmember Holly Bernatz, currently serving her third year of term, was elected in
2022 and received the most votes at the November 8, 2022 General Election:
i. Holly Bernatz: received a total of 5,603 votes
ii. Nick Lien: received a total of 5,120 votes
c. Approval of this appointment for Councilmember Holly Bernatz as Acting Mayor for
2025 is included on the Council's regular agenda.
2. Designation of the City's Official Newspaper for 2025
Staff solicited quotes (attached) from the Dakota County Tribune and the Star Tribune for
legal notices and publications. The Dakota County Tribune's quote came in lower than the
Star Tribune. Staff is satisfied with the pricing and service provided by the Dakota County
Tribune and recommends retaining them as the City's official newspaper for 2025. This item
is included in the Council's regular agenda for approval.
3. Official Depositories - Please refer to the attached resolution that identifies official City
depositories for fiscal year 2025, which is included on the Council's regular agenda for
adoption.
4. Charges and Fees for 2025 - At their December 16, 2024 Regular City Council Meeting, the
City Council adopted Ordinance 2024-14 Establishing Charges and Fees for Licenses,
Page 2 of 62
Permits, or Other City Approvals and Services for Calendar Year 2025.
5. Boards and Commissions Appointments- Interviews were held by the City Council on
Monday, December 16, 2024 for the purpose of selecting board and commission candidates.
Appointments will be made at the January 21, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting for terms
beginning February 1, 2025.
6. 2025 Council Committee Appointments - Council should discuss committee appointments for
2025 and direct Staff to add the appointed members and bring forward Resolution 2025-05
(draft attached) for adoption at the Council's regular meeting. Appointments from 2024 are
attached for review.
7. resolution, by Appoint - Appointment City Data for Authority Responsible Practices
Administrator Lynn Gorski and Police Chief Gary Rutherford (for law enforcement) as the
data practices Responsible Authority for 2025. Resolution 2025-07 is on the Council's
regular agenda for adoption.
8. Council By-Laws - attached for review are the City Council By-Laws. The last amendment to
the By-Laws was approved on January 7, 2019. Council should review the By-Laws and
advise Staff of any desired changes. This item is on the Council's regular agenda for
approval.
9. City Council Policies - attached for review are the current City Council Policies. Council
should advise Staff of any desired changes.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Review the annual organizational matters and make appointments to committees and assignments
for 2025.
ATTACHMENTS:
Dakota County Tribune, Farmington 2025 Bid
Star Tribune, Farmington 2025 Bid
2025-08 Designating Official Depositories for the City
2025-05 Approving Appointments to Council Committees for 2025
2024-57 Approving a Second Amendment to the Appointments to Council Committees for
Remainder of 2024
2024 Council Committees
City Council By-Laws 2024
Council Policies 01-07
Page 3 of 62
EAST CENTRALMINNESOTA
November 13,2024
Shirley Buecksler
City of Farmington,
430 Third Street
Farmington,MN 55024
Dear Ms.Buecksler,
Please accept the following bid from the Dakota County Tribune for legal newspaper designation for
the City Of Farmington.This newspaper is quali?ed by the State of Minnesota as a legal newspaper
under Minnesota Statutes Section 331A.02,Subd.1.
The following rate structure for legals is effective January 1.2025:
First insertion:$6.25 per column inch
Characters per inch:320
Lines per inch:9
A notarized af?davit willbe provided for each notice published.A $20 charge will be assessed on legal
notices that require typing.All published legal notices are posted on the Dakota County Tribune
website at no additional charge.All press releases are published at no additional charge as well.
The Dakota County Tribune is published weekly on Fridays.The deadline is 10:00 am.on Tuesdays
for publication on Friday of the same week.Early deadlines apply during the week of a holiday.Please
email legal notices to publlcnotice@aggecm.com.We currently have 2825 homes in the Farmington/
Rosemount/Apple Valley area subscribing to the Dakota County Tribune and 97,000 monthly average
views on our website.It is not necessary to be a subscriber to View the legal notices on our website.
They are available free of charge to the public.
Thank you for considering the Dakota County Tribune as the official newspaper for the City of
Farmington for the upcoming year.We appreciate the opportunity to serve the needs of your
district and would like to continue serving you in 2025.
(2%va
Tonya Orb ck
Adams Pu Iishing Group
Legal Notice Department Manager
763-691-6001
Sincerely,
15322 Galaxle Avenue Sulte 219 -Apple Valley,MN 55124 '970.343.0407 -SUNTHISWEEK.COM
Page 4 of 62
*Star'rribune
STARTRIBUNElEGAI.NOTICES-
YOURONESTOPSHOP.4
Why choose Star Tribune when it comes
to Legal Notices?
Because we o?er everything you need to be successrul.Including a
simple placernent process,rarrrates,timely turnaround,and the
legal quali?cation to meet all statute requirements
Sq 33,2
2025 DESIGNATED LEGAL NEWSPAPER RATES:
-$1.53 per line per day Approxrrnately $17 90 per column inch
12 lines per column inch
-Notices are charged per line not per column inch,so you are
not paying for space you are not using
-Pncrng applies to legal notices/public heanng notices only
PLACEMENT:
-Minnesota statute 412 831 requires annual designation oran
otncral newspaper star Tribune is a quali?ed legal newspaper,
publishing legal notices 7 days per week
-Primary areas sewed Anoka County.Ramsey County.Dakota
County,Henrlepln County,Scott County,Carver County Wright
County,and Sherburne County
-Legal notices will also run on starTribunecom at no extra
charge.
-Legal Notices will also run on the MNA Public Notice website
Page 5 of 62
at no extra charge,a requirement tor the state of
Minnesota.httgsj/wwwmngubllcnollce com
DEADLINES -(applies to placement,changes &
cancellations):
-Two days prior to first pubiicaiion date ai 4pm CST
-Legai display deadlines are advanced 2448 hours
-Deadllnes will be advanced for hoildays/speclal occasions
-Af?davlls must be emalled 2448 business hours after ‘351
publication date
Monday Friday 4pm
Tuesday:day 4pm
Wednesday:Manday 4pm
Thursday:Tuesday 4pm
Friday:Wednelday 4pm
Saturday:Thursday 4pm
Sunday:Friday 4pm
CIRCULATION:
-Sunday ,206,724
-Monday ,95,456
-Tuesday ,98,486
-Wednesday ,98,456
-Thursday ,98,486
-Friday ,98,486
-Saturday ,98,486
Star Tribune Print,DMA (AAM News Media statement,September
30 2022)
For more Informatlon and lo advertlse,Contact LiZ Deleeuw 0r emall
\aceads Slartnbune Com or Call 61267377000
Page 6 of 62
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2025-08
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES FOR
THE CITY OF FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 118A.02, subdivision 1, requires that a
governing body of a municipality designate the depositories for public funds, and may authorize
its treasurer or chief financial officer to make such designations; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 118A.03, requires that all public funds deposited
in a designated depository must be protected by federal deposit insurance, corporate surety bonds,
or assigned collateral, to ensure the safety of the City's funds; and
WHEREAS, the Farmington City Council desires to ensure compliance with these
provisions of Minnesota law, safeguard the City's public funds, and designate the officers
authorized to sign checks on the City's depository accounts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Farmington City Council that Old
National Bank, Castle Rock Bank, BNY Mellon (RBC Capital Markets), UMB Bank
(Oppenheimer) and US Bank (Moreton Capital Markets) are hereby designated as authorized
depositories for the City’s public funds.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Farmington City Council hereby authorizes the
City’s Finance Director to make additional designations of financial institutions as depositories for
the City's public funds, as needed, and to remove financial institutions from the list of designated
depositories as circumstances may require.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that before any deposits are made that exceed the amount
that is guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), or if the depository is not
an FDIC member, the depository must supply to the City a corporate surety bond in the amount
required by law or, in lieu of the surety bond, pledge collateral in the manner and to the extent
required and permitted by Minnesota State Chapter 118A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the officers authorized to sign checks drawn on any
of the official depositories of the City of Farmington include Joshua Hoyt, Mayor; Lynn Gorski,
City Administrator; and Kim Sommerland, Finance Director.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, this 6th day of January 2025.
ATTEST:
____________________________ ______________________________
Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk
Page 7 of 62
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2025-05
A RESOLUTION APPROVING APPOINTMENTS
TO COUNCIL COMMITTEES FOR 2025
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Farmington held a Special Council
Organizational Meeting on Monday, January 6, 2025; and
WHEREAS, appointments were made to the following public agencies:
PUBLIC AGENCY MEMBERS APPOINTED
Airlake Airport Advisory Commission
ALF Ambulance
(Apple Valley/Lakeville/ Farmington)
Dakota 911 Board of Directors
EFPAC
Empire/Farmington Planning Advisory Committee
Eureka/Farmington Planning Advisory Committee
Farmington/Castle Rock Discussion Group
Fire Relief Board
Liquor Operations Committee
MUSA Review Committee
(Metropolitan Urban Service Area)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Farmington City Council approves
the appointments to public agencies as outlined herein.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, this 6th day of January 2025.
ATTEST:
____________________________ ______________________________
Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk
Page 8 of 62
'I
i
‘
l
?
—-
——
.
u—
r
-
u
I
.
='
.
_
.
.I
I
."
_
.
"
.
'
I.
--
I.
-
-
_
.-
.'
_
-
:
Ju
n
—
I
.
.
h
..
--
J.
.I
.
-_
.
-
.
.
_
_I
-'
-.
I
_
I'
I
II
"
'I
F
I
J
.
-
1—
-
.
-
-
-.
.-
"
1:
3
1
.
2
5
:
th
-
L
J
CI
T
Y
OF
FA
R
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
DA
K
O
T
A
CO
U
N
T
Y
,
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
RE
S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
20
2
4
-
5
7
A
RE
S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
AP
P
R
O
V
I
N
G
A
SE
C
O
N
D
AM
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
TO
TH
E
AP
P
O
I
N
T
M
E
N
T
S
TO
CO
U
N
C
I
L
CO
M
M
I
T
T
E
E
S
FO
R
TH
E
RE
M
A
I
N
D
E
R
OF
CA
L
E
N
D
A
R
YE
A
R
20
2
4
WH
E
R
E
A
S
,
th
e
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
ad
o
p
t
e
d
Re
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
20
2
4
-
0
5
Ap
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
Ap
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
s
to
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
fo
r
20
2
4
at
th
e
i
r
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
Me
e
t
i
n
g
on
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
2,
20
2
4
;
an
d
WH
E
R
E
A
S
,
wi
t
h
th
e
re
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
of
Ka
t
i
e
Po
r
t
e
r
on
Ma
y
6,
20
2
4
,
Co
u
n
c
i
l
ad
o
p
t
e
d
Re
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
20
2
4
-
3
9
Ap
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
an
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
to
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
fo
r
th
e
Re
m
a
i
n
d
e
r
of
20
2
4
;
an
d
WH
E
R
E
A
S
,
Ka
t
i
e
Be
m
h
j
e
l
m
wa
s
ap
p
o
i
n
t
e
d
as
Co
u
n
c
i
l
m
e
m
b
e
r
on
Ju
n
e
3,
20
2
4
to
?l
l
th
e
se
a
t
va
c
a
t
e
d
by
Ka
t
i
e
Po
r
t
e
r
;
an
d
WH
E
R
E
A
S
,
ap
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
s
to
pu
b
l
i
c
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
ar
e
he
r
e
b
y
am
e
n
d
e
d
as
fo
l
l
o
w
s
:
PU
B
L
I
C
AG
E
N
C
Y
Ai
r
l
a
k
e
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Ad
v
i
s
o
r
y
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
AL
F
Am
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
(A
p
p
l
e
Va
l
l
e
y
La
k
e
v
i
l
l
e
Fa
r
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
)
Da
k
o
t
a
91
1
Bo
a
r
d
of
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
s
EF
P
A
C
Em
p
i
r
e
Fa
r
r
n
i
n
g
t
o
n
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Ad
v
i
s
o
r
y
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Fa
r
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
/
C
a
s
t
l
e
Ro
c
k
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
Gr
o
u
p
Fi
r
e
Re
l
i
e
f
Bo
a
r
d
Li
q
u
o
r
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
ME
M
B
E
R
(
S
)
AP
P
O
I
N
T
E
D
Ho
l
l
y
Be
m
a
t
z
Pr
i
m
a
r
y
Ka
t
i
e
Be
m
h
j
e
l
m
-
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
St
e
v
e
Wi
l
s
o
n
Pr
i
m
a
r
y
Ni
c
k
Li
e
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
Ni
c
k
Li
e
n
Pr
i
m
a
r
y
St
e
v
e
Wi
l
s
o
n
-
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
Jo
s
h
u
a
Ho
y
t
Pr
i
m
a
r
y
Ka
t
i
e
Be
m
h
j
e
l
m
-
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
Jo
s
h
u
a
Ho
y
t
Pr
i
m
a
r
y
St
e
v
e
Wi
l
s
o
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
St
e
v
e
Wi
l
s
o
n
Ni
c
k
Li
e
n
Ho
l
l
y
Be
m
a
t
z
Ka
t
i
e
Be
m
h
j
el
m
Page 9 of 62
AG
E
N
C
Y
ME
M
B
E
R
(
S
)
AP
P
O
I
N
T
E
D
M U S A
Re
v
i
ewCo
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Ho
l
l
y
Be
m
a
t
z
(Me
t
r
o
po
l
i
t
a
n
Ur
b
a
n
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Ar
e
a
)
Ni
c
k
Li
e
n
NO
W
,
TH ER EF OR
E,
BE
ITRE
S
O
L
V
E
D
th
a
t
th
e
Fa
r
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
ap
p
r
o
v
e
s
th
e
am
e
n
d
e
d
ap
p
o
in
t
m
en
t
s
topu
b
l
i
c
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
asou
t
l
i
n
e
d
he
r
e
i
n
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
Ju
l
y
1,20
2
4
th
r
o
u
g
h
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
31
,
20
2
4.
Ad
o
p
t
e
d
by
th
e
Ci
ty
C o u n ci
lof
th
e
Ci
t
y
ofFa
r
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
Mi
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
,
th
i
s
1S
t
da
y
of
Ju
l
y
20
2
4
.
AT
T
E
S
T
:
“M
’
Re
s
o
lu
t
i
o
n
20
2
4
-
57
Pa
g
e
o f2
os h u a
yt
,Ma
y
o
k sl er
,
CiCl
e
r
k
S h
r l eR
Page 10 of 62
Committee Meeting Date/Time Location Council Representatives Date Appointed
Airlake Airport Advisory Commission Quarterly Primary - Holly Bernatz
Alternate - Katie Bernhjelm
January 2, 2024
July 1, 2024
ALF Ambulance
Apple Valley/Lakeville/Farmington
4th Thursday
January, April, July, October Rotates Primary - Steve Wilson
Alternate - Nick Lien January 2, 2024
Dakota 911 Board of Directors
8 a.m., 3rd Thursday
February, May, September,
November
Dakota 911 Training Room Primary - Nick Lien
Alternate - Steve Wilson January 2, 2024
EFPAC
Joint Empire/Farmington Planning Advisory
Committee
As needed Primary - Joshua Hoyt
Katie Bernhjelm - Alternate
January 2, 2024
July 1, 2024
Eureka/Farmington Planning Advisory Committee As needed Primary - Holly Bernatz
Alternate - Joshua Hoyt January 2, 2024
Farmington/Castle Rock Discussion Group As needed Primary - Joshua Hoyt
Alternate - Steve Wilson January 2, 2024
Fire Relief Board Quarterly City Hall
Elected - Steve Wilson
and Nick Lien
Appointed Official - Lynn Gorski
January 2, 2024
Liquor Operations Committee Once a year Liquor Store(s)Primary - Holly Bernatz
Alternate - Katie Bernhjelm
January 2, 2024
July 1, 2024
MUSA Review Committee
Municipal Urban Service Area As needed Primary - Holly Bernatz
Alternate - Nick Lien January 2, 2024
2024 COUNCIL COMMITTEES
Pa
g
e
1
1
o
f
6
2
CITY COUNCIL BY-LAWS
SCOPE
These by-laws are proposed pursuant to the provisions of Title I, Chapter 5, Section 2, of the
Farmington City Code. These by-laws, when adopted, are intended to deal with matters not
otherwise covered by state law, city ordinance, or elsewhere.
SECTION I – MEETINGS
SUBD. 1 – Regular meetings of the City Council shall be held on the first (1st) and third (3rd)
Monday of each month at 7 p.m. Any regular meeting falling upon a holiday shall be held on the
next following business day at the same time and place. All meetings, including special and
adjourned meetings, shall be held in the City Hall unless otherwise designated.
SUBD. 2 – Special meetings of the City Council may be called by the Mayor or by any two
members of the City Council in writing, filed with the Clerk. At least three days before the meeting,
the Clerk shall notify each member of the time, place, and purpose of the meeting by electronic
notice to be sent to him/her personally. At least three days prior to the meeting, the Clerk shall also
post notice of the meeting and notify each person who has filed a written request for notice of
special meetings. Emergency meetings may be held because of circumstances that, in the
judgement of the City Council, require immediate attention; notification requirements shall be
suspended for special meetings except that the Clerk must make a good faith effort to contact each
City Councilmember and persons filing a request for written notice.
The notice of special meeting shall state the item(s) to be discussed and possibly acted upon. Items
not stated in the notice may be discussed, but no action may be taken if any member objects.
Any special meeting attended by a majority of the Councilmembers shall be a valid meeting for
the transaction of any business that may come before the meeting.
SUBD. 3 – At the first regular City Council meeting in January of each year, the City Council
shall: (1) designate the depositories of city funds; (2) designate the official newspaper; (3) pursuant
to this section, choose an Acting Mayor from the trustees, who shall perform the duties of the
Mayor during the disability or absence of the Mayor from the city or, in case of a vacancy in the
office of Mayor, until a successor has been appointed and qualifies. The Acting Mayor shall be
selected as follows: Odd Numbered Year – Member serving third year of term who received the
most votes when elected; Even Numbered Year – Member serving fourth year of term who
received the second most votes when elected.
SUBD. 4 – Commission appointments for boards and commissions shall be made at the second
regular meeting of each year. All appointments will be made from applications that have been filed
with the Clerk. All applications submitted shall be retained for a period of one year to serve as a
file from which appointments can be made during the year if needed.
Page 12 of 62
City Council By-Laws
Page 2 of 7
SUBD. 5 – All City Council meetings, as defined by state law, including special and adjourned
meetings, shall be open to the public. The City Attorney or City Administrator shall advise the City
Council, in writing, as to his interpretations of the state “Open Meeting Law.” All new members
shall be provided such written interpretation and briefed on such by the City Attorney or City
Administrator. The Attorney or City Administrator shall bring any changes in his interpretation to
the attention of the City Council, in writing, and have the subject placed on the agenda for
discussion.
SUBD. 6 – The City Council shall adopt such policies that will ensure an orderly, mutually
respectful, and appropriate public meeting atmosphere conducive to the proper conduct of City
affairs and business. Rules governing the conduct of the meeting shall be enforceable by the
presiding officer, typically the Mayor, or any other such Councilmember in the absence of the
Mayor. The City Council may adopt such rules as a separate City Council policy and may make
such changes in policy as deemed appropriate.
SECTION II – PRESIDING OFFICER; RULES OF ORDER
SUBD. 1 – The Mayor shall preside at all meetings of the City Council. In the absence of the
Mayor, the Acting Mayor shall preside. In the absence of both, the Clerk shall call the meeting to
order and shall preside until the City Councilmembers present at the meeting choose one of their
members to act temporarily as presiding officer.
SUBD. 2 – The presiding officer shall preserve order, enforce the rule of procedure herein
prescribed, and determine all questions of procedure and order. Except as otherwise provide by
statute or by these rules, the proceedings of the City Council shall be conducted in accordance with
the following rules of order:
A. A motion must be seconded before being considered by the City Council, and the mover,
as well as the seconder, must be recognized by the presiding officer.
B. Any motion may be withdrawn by its mover with the consent of his/her second. But a
motion, once debated, cannot be withdrawn except by majority vote of the City Council.
C. A motion will not be subject to debate until it has been stated by the presiding officer and
s/he has opened it to debate.
D. Each member, while speaking, shall confine him/herself to the question at hand and avoid
all personal, indecorous, or sarcastic language.
E. Whenever any member of the City Council desires to speak on any question which affects
him/her personally, s/he shall first vacate his chair and shall not resume his seat until the
matter under consideration has been acted upon. He shall be allowed to make comments
on the question as a private citizen.
F. Whenever public hearings are held, the presiding officer, during the open hearing, shall
allow any member of the public present, the privilege of speaking. A reasonable time shall
be allowed to anyone as long as they are not repeating points already made. The public will
conduct themselves in the same manner as would be expected from the City Council. The
presiding officer shall be responsible for the public’s conduct and may rule anyone out of
order.
Page 13 of 62
City Council By-Laws
Page 3 of 7
G. During times at any meeting, the presiding officer will allow the public to participate as
long as there is reason to believe the input is beneficial.
SUBD. 3 – Any member may appeal to the City Council from a ruling of the presiding officer. If
the appeal is seconded, the appealing member may speak first on the reason for his appeal. General
discussion can then take place on the appeal before a vote. The appeal s hall be sustained if it is
approved by a majority of the members present.
SECTION III – AGENDAS
SUBD. 1 – The agenda shall be prepared by the Clerk and shall be closed at Noon on the
Wednesday preceding the meeting for publication purposes. Items added after this time must be
listed as supplemental and presented to City Council under the “Approve Agenda” section of the
meeting.
SUBD. 2 – The agenda packet shall be distributed electronically to the City Council by 6 p.m. on
the Thursday preceding the City Council meeting.
SUBD. 3 – Any Councilmember can place an item on the agenda by so instructing the Clerk.
SUBD. 4 – No item shall be placed on the agenda unless the item is expressed in such a way as to
clearly show the subject matter involved.
SUBD. 5 – The agenda shall be subject to approval by a majority vote of the members present.
Items not on the agenda may be discussed, but no action may be taken if any member objects.
SUBD. 6 – A Consent Agenda may be included as part of the agenda, to be approved by a
unanimous vote of the City Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Agenda by request
of the Mayor or Councilmembers.
SECTION IV – ORDER OF BUSINESS
SUBD. 1 – Each meeting of the City Council shall convene at the time and place appointed
therefore. City Council business shall be conducted in the following order:
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Roll Call
4. Approve Agenda
5. Announcements
6. Citizen Comments
7. Consent Agenda
8. Public Hearings
9. Award of Contracts
10. Petitions, Requests and Communications
11. Unfinished Business
Page 14 of 62
City Council By-Laws
Page 4 of 7
12. New Business
13. City Council Roundtable
14. Adjourn
SUBD. 2 – The order of business may be varied by the presiding officer, with the scheduled time
of a public hearing publicly specified as concurrent with that of the time of the City Council
meeting. Public hearings scheduled shall then be opened by the presiding officer in the order they
appear on the agenda or may be varied to facilitate the efficient conduct of City Council business.
SUBD. 3 – Each person shall be allowed a maximum of five minutes to address the City Council
under Citizen Comments.
SECTION V – MINUTES
SUBD. 1 – Minutes of each City Council meeting shall be kept by the Clerk, or, in his absence,
his designee. In the absence of both, the presiding officer shall appoint a Secretary Pro-Tem.
Ordinances, resolutions, and claims need not be recorded in full in the minutes if they appear in
other permanent records of the Clerk and can be accurately identified from the description given
in the minutes.
SUBD. 2 – The minute of each meeting shall be reduced to typewritten form, shall be signed by
the taker, and included in the agenda packet for approval at the next City Council meeting. The
minutes are placed under the Consent Agenda. The minutes need not be read aloud, but a member
shall request the minutes be pulled from the Consent Agenda for separate vote if there are any
additions or corrections or the member was absent from the meeting and would need to abstain
from voting on said minutes.
SUBD. 3 – Executive sessions recorded pursuant to state law shall follow state guidelines.
SUBD. 4 – The minutes shall substantially follow the following format:
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
(REGULAR OR SPECIAL) MEETING
DATE
1. Presiding officer, time, and place of meeting
2. Members Present and Absent, time any member arrives late, or leaves early. The time shall
also be recorded in the text of the minutes.
3. Summaries of all discussions, communications, decisions, including a copy of each motion
exactly as stated, whether or not it was adopted, and a record of the vote. (Complete copies
of resolutions and ordinances are not required to be recorded as part of the minutes.)
4. Time of adjournment.
Page 15 of 62
City Council By-Laws
Page 5 of 7
SECTION VI – QUORUM AND VOTING
SUBD. 1 – At all City Council meetings, a majority of all Councilmembers elected shall constitute
a quorum for the transaction of business.
SUBD. 2 – The votes of members on any question pending before the City Council shall be by roll
call, except for the following agenda items: approval of the agenda, approval of the minutes,
approval of the Consent Agenda, and adjournment. The Clerk shall call the roll on a rotating basis.
The names of those voting for and against the question shall be recorded in the minutes. If any
member, being present, does not vote, the minutes shall be stated: “Abstain: Name.”
SUBD. 3 – Except as otherwise provided by statute, a majority vote of a quorum shall prevail.
SECTION VII – ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS,
MOTIONS, PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
SUBD. 1 – If requested by any member of the City Council, every ordinance and resolution shall
be presented in writing and shall be read in full before a vote is taken thereon. All motions shall
be recorded in the minutes and stated in full before they are submitted to a vote by the presiding
officer. All petitions and other communications addressed to the City Council shall be in writing
and shall be read in full upon presentation of the same to the City Council. They shall then be
recorded in the minutes by title and filed in the office of the Clerk.
SUBD. 2 – Every ordinance and resolution passed by the City Council shall be signed by the
Mayor, attested by the Clerk, and filed by him/her in the ordinance or resolution electronic file.
Proof of publication of every ordinance shall be on file in the office of the Clerk.
SUBD. 3 – Every ordinance and resolution repealing a previous ordinance or resolution, or a
section or subdivision thereof, shall give the number, if any, and the title of the ordinance or
resolution to be repealed in whole or in part. No ordinance or resolution, or section or subdivision
thereof, shall be amended by reference to title alone, but such an amending ordinance or resolution
shall set forth in full each section or subdivision to be amended.
SECTION VIII – ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW
SUBD. 1 – The City Council shall conduct an annual review of the City Administrator. The
procedure shall be substantially as follows:
A. The Administrator shall distribute a City Council approved evaluation form on or before
the anniversary of the Administrator’s appointment.
B. Councilmembers shall complete the prescribed form and schedule a special meeting to
evaluate the Administrator, based upon the written evaluations submitted.
C. The completed evaluation form shall be submitted to the City Attorney within 21 days from
the date the evaluation document is received by City Council.
D. The City Attorney shall tabulate the results of the evaluation without any reference to
individual Councilmembers.
Page 16 of 62
City Council By-Laws
Page 6 of 7
E. The City Council shall consider the tabulated results during a meeting following the special
meeting to evaluate the Administrator and may take action accordingly.
SECTION IX – BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS;
MINIMUM PERFORMANCE
SUBD. 1 – There shall be submitted to the City Council at the first meeting of January of each
year, an attendance report of various boards and commission to the City Council.
SUBD. 2 – Attendance reports shall be submitted to the City Council on the following citizen
involvement in boards and commissions: Water Board, Planning Commission, Parks and
Recreation Commission, Rambling River Center Advisory Board, and Economic Development
Authority.
SUBD. 3 – Reports shall state the number of regular and special meetings held and the total number
of meetings attended by each member.
SUBD. 4 – It shall be the goal of the City Council to meet at least one time per year with each
board and commission on an informal basis. Such meeting shall not be held in conjunction with a
regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council, board, or commission.
SECTION X – AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES AND REIMBURSEMENTS
SUBD. 1 – Definitions: For the purpose of this section, the following terms shall have these
meanings given to them.
Authorized Person: The Mayor or any Councilmember.
Authorized Expenditure: Expenditures made on behalf of the City for a public purpose as
determined by the City Council. Authorized expenditures shall include, but not be limited to, the
following: travel (except auto mileage within 25 miles), meals, registration, tuition, course
materials.
Official Function: Any function which is for a public purpose as determined by the City Council.
Official functions shall include, but not be limited to, the following: City Council meetings outside
of the city limits, League of Minnesota Cities functions, training sessions, education courses,
official City business, legislative meetings, seminars, meetings where City representation is
requested.
SUBD. 2 – An authorized person may be reimbursed for all authorized expenditures incurred for
attending an official function, provided that the following conditions are met:
A. The expenditures must be for a public purpose as determined by the City Council.
B. The City Council must be authorized to make the expenditure.
C. The money must have been actually been spent on behalf of the City, except as provided
under Subdivision 3.C.2.
Page 17 of 62
City Council By-Laws
Page 7 of 7
D. The City Council has approved the request to attend an official function except as provided
under Subdivision 3.C.1.
SUBD. 3 – Procedure:
A. A request to attend an official function, or to request reimbursement for attending an official
function, shall be submitted to the City Council on an authorized form for consideration as
soon as reasonably possible.
B. The City Council shall either approve the request, provided that the conditions set forth
under Subdivision 2.A.B.C. are met or deny the request.
C. The person may submit a list of itemized expenditures on an authorized form for City
Council action as follows:
1. Reimbursements for expenses may be submitted for City Council consideration.
2. The City Council may advance the estimated cost of traveling to and attending the
function, provided the person submits a list of itemized authorized expenditures, and
reimburse the City for any unused portion.
SUBD. 4 – The Mayor shall be reimbursed on a monthly basis as set forth in the annual operating
budget, provided that the Mayor submit an affidavit of expenses for the allocated amount.
SECTION XI – SUSPENSION OR AMENDMENT OF BY-LAWS
SUBD. 1 – These by-laws may be temporarily suspended by a unanimous vote of the members
present.
SUBD. 2 – These by-laws shall not be repealed or amended except by a majority vote of the whole
City Council after notice has been given at some preceding City Council meeting.
SECTION XII – EFFECTIVE DATE
SUBD. 1 – These by-laws have been adopted by the City Council on the 6th day of September
1983 and become effective on the first day following publication of the same in the official
newspaper.
Adopted: 9/06/1983
Effective: 10/03/1983
Reviewed: 1/03/2012, 1/07/2013, 1/06/2014, 1/05/2015, 1/04/2016, 1/03/2017, 1/02/2018,
1/07/2019, 1/06/2020, 1/04/2021, 1/03/2022, 1/03/2023, 1/02/2024
Amended: 8/03/1987, 1/21/1992, 4/20/1992, 8/17/1992, 2/01/1993, 7/18/1994, 9/06/1994,
1/17/1995, 1/16/1996, 3/03/1997, 11/03/1997, 1/05/1998, 2/01/1999, 1/18/2005, 2/02/2009,
1/03/2012, 1/05/2015, 7/05/2016, 1/02/2018, 1/07/2019
Page 18 of 62
Adopted 10/6/97
COUNCIL POLICY - 01
Council-Resident Complaint Resolution Process
The handling and resolution of resident complaints is a very high service priority for council and
staff. In order to effectively and efficiently address resident complaints brought directly to
Council members, the following procedures and value statements are proposed:
a) If a Council member is uncertain as to the proper referring department of a resident
service complaint, she or he is encouraged to contact the City Administrator, or if the
referring service department is known, the Council member is encouraged to contact
the Department Director directly. Consequently, all resident service complaints or
process questions should be taken either to the City Administrator or to the affected
Department Director to maintain consistency in service communications, accuracy,
appropriate management accountability, and general courtesy to the managing
director.
b) All resident service complaints or concerns are important, however, in order to
effectively resolve the issue and maintain consistency in resolving existing service
priorities, a reasonable amount of time may be required to address the issue in the
order received. In complaint situations where the level of difficulty is high and/or
some amount of time is needed to focus organizational resources on the issue,
Council members and the respective resident will be updated on the status.
c) In situations where either the City Administrator or Department Director is
unavailable, leaving a detailed message on voice mail is encouraged. Staff will
respond to these messages within a reasonable amount of time, usually within the
day or next business day at the latest.
d) The reporting Council member will receive service feedback on the complaint by the
responding department director/designated staff person or the City Administrator
upon resolution or as may be requested by the Council member.
e) Once the resident service complaint is brought to the attention of the City
Administrator/Department Director, it is expected that staff will handle the issue
exclusively to ensure direct communications with the resident, and will handle the
issue in question according to the City Code, professional judgment and reasonable
service time frames.
f) Council members are encouraged to refer the resident to the appropriate department
director, or indicate that the administrator or department director will contact them
on their respective concerns.
Page 19 of 62
Adopted 10/6/97
COUNCIL POLICY - 02
Council-Staff Communication Protocol
In order to maintain a consistent, open, and mutually productive relationship, it is encouraged
that Council members communicate with the administrator or appropriate department director on
all service related issues. It is important that when a service related issue affecting the
organization is in question, that the administrator or affected department director is notified to
provide Council with a senior level management response.
Page 20 of 62
Adopted 10/6/97
COUNCIL POLICY - 03
Council Expectations of Staff Work Assignments
All City-related issues will be objectively and professionally reviewed by staff. Staff research
and concluding opinions will be based upon all available relevant sources of data, and based
upon respective staff expertise. Staff is hired to provide Council with professional expertise on a
variety of subjects and issues to be presented in an unbiased, objective manner. Council is free
at all times to question staff rationale, process, and procedures issues and associated background
information, but should allow staff to exercise their professional judgment with confidence.
Page 21 of 62
Adopted 10/6/97
COUNCIL POLICY - 04
Council-Management Team Statement of Commitment to Productive Working
Relationship
Council and staff roles are mutually supportive and respectful; committed to working together as
a team. Keeping communication lines open, mutually respectful and honest are key to a
productive, high-quality and mentally healthy work environment. Staff respects Council’s role
as that of preeminent policy maker on all issues affecting the community. Conversely, Council
respects the management team’s role as professional, competent managers committed to
implementing Council policies in a credible, considered, and objective manner.
Page 22 of 62
Adopted 10/6/07
COUNCIL POLICY - 05
CITY COMMISSION APPOINTMENT PROCESS
Policy Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to set forth the procedures to be used in appointing interested
citizens to the City Commissions.
The appointment of citizens to City advisory commissions and boards shall be made by the City
Council on an annual basis to fill all expired terms. The Council shall conduct interviews of all
qualified candidates to consider relevant qualifications and interests, and appoint such members
as the Council deems in the best interest of the City.
Commission seats vacated by resignation and/or removal shall be appointed by first reviewing
any applications on file and/or any requests to be appointed by interested citizens having taken
notice of an existing vacancy. If no applications are on file, the City shall solicit applications for
appointment by advertisement in the legal newspaper and other public mediums as appropriate.
Appointments to fill seats vacated by resignation and/or removal shall coincide with the normal
expiration date of the seat and shall be made as soon as practical. Appointments to fill vacated
seats during an unexpired term shall be in accordance with the City Code.
Page 23 of 62
Effective 1/98
Amended 1/05
COUNCIL POLICY – 06
Council Meeting/Public Hearing Citizen Participation Protocol
POLICY PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for citizen participation at public
meetings that will ensure that the following Council objectives are achieved.
Welcome and encourage citizen comments on matters of interest or
concern
Preserve and promote the accurate exchange of information
Preserve the equal rights of citizens to communicate their views
Provide for an orderly, courteous, and efficient meeting
Provide adequate time for Council to review and consider agenda items
COUNCIL MEETING
The following Council meeting guidelines are established and shall be enforceable by the
Mayor or presiding Council member. The following guidelines may be amended by a
majority vote of Council.
1. Questions are to be addressed to Council during the meeting; citizens are
encouraged to contact City staff prior to or following the Council meeting for
further information. Council is free to call upon or direct a question to staff
as necessary or appropriate.
2. A citizen desiring to speak may do so only after being recognized by the
Mayor. Upon recognition, the citizen should approach the podium and
clearly state his/her name and address.
3. To allow for equal time, citizens are limited to five (5) minutes to address
Council.
4. Complaints or concerns expressed during ‘Citizen Comments’, and not on a
regular Council meeting agenda, will be responded to by the next regularly
scheduled Council meeting and placed on the Council Agenda. Citizens will
receive a copy of the City’s response prior to the next meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
Citizen testimony, opinions, or questions at a public hearing are encouraged, and are
considered by Council in their respective deliberations. The following guidelines are
established by Council and are enforceable by the Mayor or the presiding Council
member.
1. A member of the City staff will introduce and explain the agenda item.
Page 24 of 62
Effective 1/98
Amended 1/05
2. The Mayor will invite public comment and set a time limit for each speaker so
that all citizens desiring to address the issue may have the opportunity to do
so. A group of persons may select one spokesperson to speak for the group;
that person may be granted more time at the Mayor’s discretion.
3. A citizen desiring to speak may do so upon recognition by the Mayor. He/she
shall approach the podium and state their name and address. Citizens not
recognized by the Mayor shall refrain from interrupting a speaker who has
been recognized as a matter of general courtesy.
4. Questions should be addressed to Council. Council is free to call upon or
redirect a question to a staff member. Citizens are encouraged to contact staff
members prior to or following the public hearing to obtain further
information.
5. Each citizen will be permitted to address Council once during the meeting. At
the Mayor’s discretion, second comments may be heard if time exists or if
new information is to be presented.
6. After citizen comments have been heard, Council will close the public portion
of the hearing and then hold its own discussion on the issue. A decision may
be made at this time or postponed until a later meeting. No further public
comment on the topic will be allowed unless specifically invited by the
Mayor.
These guidelines may be amended upon a majority vote of the Council.
Page 25 of 62
Adopted 10/6/97
COUNCIL POLICY - 07
Council Workshop Protocols and Purpose
POLICY PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines and clarify the legislative nature and purpose
of a Council Workshop.
WORKSHOP DEFINITION
Council workshops are special work sessions attended by Council. Designated as special
informational opportunities for Council, as a whole, to address, examine, and formulate
legislative positions on a variety of complex policy issues affecting the community at local, state,
and federal levels.
WORKSHOP PROTOCOLS
The following guidelines have been adopted by Council to establish an appropriate framework
for Council workshops to ensure a productive, team oriented and conducive work session
environment.
Because the work sessions are attended by a quorum of the City Council, they are
considered public meetings subject to the state Open Meeting Law.
Any Council member may request that a workshop be held to discuss a matter, however,
items will only be scheduled for a work session by a majority of the Council.
The Mayor or Acting Mayor, as meeting chair, shall endeavor to provide all members
with an opportunity to participate in workshop discussions.
Because Council workshops are primarily held for the benefit of locally elected officials
to further study, evaluate, and understand complex community issues and their related
policy implications, no official actions will be taken by Council and there may be limits
placed on the participation of interested individuals and organizations.
Issues to be studied at Council workshops shall be publicly identified and appropriately
publicized. Agendas shall be prepared in accordance with the issues to be discussed by
Council.
Workshop meeting dates, when requested and approved by Council, shall be scheduled as
needed and meet the requirements of the Open Meeting Law.
WORKSHOP FORMAT
As the intent of a Council workshop is designed to facilitate a better understanding of legislative
issues before Council, members shall have the opportunity to freely express their thoughts, ideas
and concerns in order to fully explore the issues before coming to a final policy position. As
Council workshops are conducted as an informal work session, all discussions shall be
Page 26 of 62
Adopted 10/6/97
considered fact-finding, hypothetical and unofficial critical thinking exercises, which do not
reflect an official public position.
While individual and group positions may be formed as part of this process, no official vote shall
be taken. Should Council express consensus of opinion on any given matter under deliberation
at a workshop, Council members reserve the right to modify, amend, or change their positions
prior to an official vote.
PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
Council work session outcomes should not be construed by the attending public and/or reporting
media as the articulation of a formal City policy position. Only official Council action normally
taken at a regularly scheduled Council meeting should be considered as a formal expression of
the City’s position on any given matter.
This policy may be amended by a majority vote of Council as deemed necessary and appropriate.
Page 27 of 62
COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator
From: John Powell, Public Works Director
Department: Engineering
Subject: Speed Limit Plan and Policy
Meeting: Council Work Session - Jan 06 2025
INTRODUCTION:
The issue of speed limit levels, the City's ability to set speed limits, and the process for changing
speed limits has been discussed at work sessions held on December 4, 2023 and February 5,
2024. Past discussion has focused on changes in state legislation enabling Cities to have more
control over speed limits on local roads and best management practices for setting speed limits on
either a citywide or roadway specific basis. Staff is recommending that we develop a speed limit
plan and policy on a citywide basis.
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
Page 28 of 62
Many Cities have addressed this issue on a citywide basis versus reacting to speed limit concerns
from residents, businesses, and property owners as they arise. This includes Minneapolis and St.
Paul, as well as several suburban Cities.
Benefits to this approach include the following:
Enhanced transparency via creation of a single reference document for city speed limits.
Eliminates repetitive and overlapping data gathering which could occur with a more reactive
speed limit policy.
Higher process visibility through citywide communication efforts, instead of mailings limited
to specific neighborhoods.
Reduces Staff time consumed by responding to speed limit issues.
As speed limit changes require City Council action, it would enable implementation of
multiple changes with a single action.
New signs for multiple speed limit change locations could be ordered at the same time.
If the City Council is in agreement with this approach, the City will prepare a consultant work scope
and budget for your consideration.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Discussion only
ACTION REQUESTED:
Discussion only
ATTACHMENTS:
LRRB Report 2023RIC07
Page 29 of 62
FINAL REPORT
2023RIC07
Guidelines for Determining Speed Stonebrooke Limits on Municipal Roadways Engineering
Page 30 of 62
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 31 of 62
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 32 of 62
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 33 of 62
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 34 of 62
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 35 of 62
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 36 of 62
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 37 of 62
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 38 of 62
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 39 of 62
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 40 of 62
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 41 of 62
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 42 of 62
▪
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 43 of 62
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 44 of 62
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 45 of 62
▪ 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 46 of 62
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 47 of 62
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 48 of 62
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 49 of 62
(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 50 of 62
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 51 of 62
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 52 of 62
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 53 of 62
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 54 of 62
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 55 of 62
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
5
6
o
f
6
2
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
5
7
o
f
6
2
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
5
8
o
f
6
2
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
5
9
o
f
6
2
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
0
o
f
6
2
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
1
o
f
6
2
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
2
o
f
6
2