Consultation Workshops September/October 2015 2016 Policy Update - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Consultation Workshops September/October 2015

I.

2016 Policy Update

II.

Cost Participation Policy Background

• The Law
• The Policy

III.

Outreach and Consultation

IV.

Schedule

V.

Survey Results

VI.

Input and Discussion

 The commissioner of transportation, in

consultation with representatives of local units of government, shall create and adopt a policy concerning cost participation for cooperative construction projects and maintenance responsibilities between the Department of Transportation and local units

• f government.

 The policy must minimize the share of

cooperative project costs to be funded by the local units of government, while complying in all respects with the state constitutional requirements concerning allowable uses of the trunk highway fund.

 The policy should provide and include

sufficient flexibility for unique projects and locations if doing so results in a lower total project cost.

 The policy must be completed and adopted

by the commissioner no later than March 1,

• 2016. Minnesota Laws 2015, Chapter 75, Article 2, Section 52

The Law

There is hereby created a trunk highway system which shall be constructed, improved and maintained as public highways by the

• state. Minnesota Constitution Article 14, Section 2

There is hereby created a trunk highway fund which shall be used solely for the purposes specified in section 2. Minnesota Constitution Article 14, Section 6

"In the absence of qualifying or restrictive language, the provisions of Minn. Const… art. 16, §§ 2 and 6, are not to be construed as expressing an intent to limit the expenditure of funds thereunder to only one, or less than all,

• f the purposes for which highways exist in our

society of today." Minneapolis Gas Company vs. Zimmerman - 1958

• Subd. 1. The commissioner shall carry out the

provisions of article14, section 2, of the Constitution of the state of Minnesota…

• Subd. 3. The commissioner may expend trunk

highway funds only for trunk highway purposes… Expenditures may not be made for items that “do not further a highway purpose and do not aid in the construction, improvement, or maintenance of the highway system.”

MS 161.20 General Powers Of Commissioner.

This appropriation is for the actual construction, reconstruction, and improvement of trunk highways, including design-build contracts, internal department costs associated with delivering the construction program, and consultant usage to support these activities. This includes the cost of actual payment to landowners for lands acquired for highway rights-of-way, payment to lessees, interest subsidies, and relocation expenses.

Minnesota Laws 2015, Chapter 75, Article 2, Section 56

 Regulatory Requirements:

• Federal regulations (e.g. environmental/NEPA) may

dictate eligibility of certain items

• If required, these items become eligible as serving a

trunk highway purpose

 Alternate Funding Sources:

• Grants, dedicated legislative allocations, or other non-

State Road Construction funding sources might be used to pay for items that are not trunk highway purpose eligible Could c d create te p percepti ption of i inco consistency cy among ng proje ject cts

"Complete Streets" is the planning, scoping, design, implementation, operation, and maintenance of roads in order to reasonably address the safety and accessibility needs of users

• f all ages and abilities. Complete streets

considers the needs of motorists, pedestrians, transit users and vehicles, bicyclists, and commercial and emergency vehicles moving along and across roads, intersections, and crossings in a manner that is sensitive to the local context and recognizes that the needs vary in urban, suburban, and rural settings.

MS 174.75 Complete Streets.

By January 15, 2016, the commissioners of transportation and public safety, in consultation with the commissioner of management and budget, shall jointly submit a report to the chairs and ranking minority members of the legislative committees with jurisdiction over transportation

• finance. The report must list detailed expenditures

and transfers from the trunk highway fund and highway user tax distribution fund for fiscal years 2010 through 2015, and shall include information

• n the purpose of each expenditure.

Minnesota Laws 2015, Chapter 75, Article 2, Section 3, Subd. 3

The accommodation of utility facilities on Minnesota trunk highway rights of way is addressed by federal and Minnesota statutes and rules. Utility Accommodation on Highway Right of Way

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/policy/operations/op002.html

The Policy

This policy has been developed to determine the extent to which trunk highway funds may be expended on elements of cooperative construction projects and maintenance. The basis of this policy is that Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) participation is limited to trunk highway purposes.

 Must be needed to serve transportation users

• f the TH corridor (Complete Streets Policy)

 Based upon the need not what it is  Depends upon the scope of the project  Does not matter who initiates a project

 The policy is only binding on MnDOT.

Exceeding policy limits requires an exception.

 Local agencies are not legally obligated to

pay a local share until/unless they sign an agreement, except for utilities.

 The policy is not an offer to pay. MnDOT

decides if and how much it is willing to pay.

Philo losophy b behin ind l local r l responsib ibil ilit ity f for main intenance a activ ivit itie ies

 Shared infrastructure has a shared benefit.  Where there is a shared benefit, there should be a shared

cost.

 Costs include both construction and major and minor

maintenance

 To maximize benefits for taxpayers:

• MnDOT can more efficiently construct the infrastructure. Therefore MnDOT

is willing to pay more for construction.

• Local agencies can more efficiently provide maintenance. MnDOT hopes

they will find it reasonable to contribute in the form of maintenance.

Steer eering T Tea eam Mem ember ers

Cities, Counties, and Townships:

• Mark Krebsbach, Dakota County
• John Brunkhorst, McLeod County
• Jon Okeson, Becker County

Commissioner

• Tim Murray, Faribault
• Russ Matthys, Eagan
• Mary McComber, Oak Park

Heights

• Abbey Bryduck, Association of

MN Counties

• Anne Finn, League of MN Cities
• Gary Bruggenthies, MN Township

Association MnDOT:

• Mark Gieseke, Transportation

System Management

• Chris Roy, Project Management &

Technical Support

• Jim Cownie, Chief Counsel’s Office
• Mary Ann Frasczak, Financial Mgmt
• Brian Gage, Program Mgmt
• Jon Huseby, District 8
• Maryanne Kelly-Sonnek,

Cooperative Agreements

• Nancy Melvin, Policy Manager
• Rhonda Prestegard, District 6
• Ted Schoenecker, State Aid

Steer teering g Tea eam’s s Charge

• Review and consider stakeholder input.
• Recommend policy changes that will

result in shared cost trunk highway projects with the highest amount that is reasonable for a trunk highway purpose.

Survey vey

• Dist

istrib ribut uted ed t to:

• County Engineers
• State Aid City Engineers
• League of Minnesota Cities (email list)
• Minnesota Township Association (email list)
• MnDOT: project managers, design engineers,

bridge, maintenance, planners, traffic, lighting, water resources

Consu sultation W Worksh shops

Date te Loca cation

• n

Tim Time Thurs, Sept. 10 MnDOT District 3 - Baxter 10 a.m. to noon Tues, Sept. 15 Ramsey Co. Public Works (Arden Hills) 10:00 a.m. to noon Thurs, Sept. 17 MnDOT District 2 - Bemidji 9:30 to 11:30 a.m. Fri, Sept. 18 MnDOT District 6 - Rochester 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Mon, Sept. 21 Hennepin County Public Works 10 a.m. to noon Wed, Sept. 23 MnDOT District 3 - St. Cloud 10 a.m. to noon Mon, Sept. 28 Eagan 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Tues, Sept. 29 Willmar 9:30 a.m. - noon Thurs, Oct. 1 MnDOT District 7 - Mankato 9 a.m. - 11 a.m. Thurs, Oct. 1 Windom 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Thurs, Oct. 1 Eveleth Noon – 2 p.m. Wed, Oct. 7 MnDOT Dist. 4 - Detroit Lakes 1 p.m. - 4 p.m.

Input Input f from MnDO MnDOT Ma Mana nagement nt

• Various Management Groups:
• District Engineers
• Maintenance Engineers
• Assistant District Engineers
• Planners

Review Recommen ended ed C Changes es

• After Steering Team recommends

changes and before policy adoption MnDOT will review recommendations with external stakeholders via email and webinar

Project t Websi site te

www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/program/costp articipation.html

 Information about 2016 update  Link to existing policy  Consultation workshops – schedule/locations  Survey results  Other relevant information, as available

August 13th Steering Team kickoff meeting August 25th Resource Investment Council (RIC) September 9th Steering Team meeting to review survey results EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDER INPUT August 19th to Sept 1st Local agency survey Sep 10th- Oct 7th District Outreach Events – See attached schedule October 12th-23rd County & City District Pre-Screening Board meetings INTERNAL STAKEHOLDER INPUT Sept 9th – Oct 20th RIC, PMG, District Engineers, MBMT, PCMG/CMG, DSAE DRAFT T UPDATE TE Oct 12th to Nov ?th Project Work Team and consultant develop a draft recommendation STA TAKEHOLDER R DRA RAFT POLICY RE REVI VIEW November ? Steering Team Meeting to review input and recommend draft updates November ? E-mail communication to external agencies/opportunity for meetings November 10th to 24th Internal stakeholder review meetings FINAL AL REVIEW AND APPROV OVAL AL January ?th Steering Team Meeting to review and approve final draft policy February 9th MnDOT Governance Council approval (documents due on February 1st) March 1st Updated policy is adopted

 Survey

ey D Distributed uted – August 19 19

 Surv

rvey C Clo lose sed – Frid Friday S Sept 4 4

72 R Resp sponden ents ts

What t ty type of

• f gov
• vernment a

t agency y do

• you
• u r

represent? t?

Wh What is yo your R Role?

When w was y your m r most re recent e exp xperi rience w wit ith a a Coop

• operati

tive C Con

• nstr

truct ction A Agreement w with M MnDOT?

Ne Never p par articipat ated before re, b , but w work rkin ing

• n an

an act active project ct Neve ver b been i invo volve ved with a a MnDOT T Cooper erative e Constr tructi tion

• n

agreem eemen ent projec ject

Next is a series of questions on cost participation policy in multiple areas. Please respond to each category. Please indicate your experience with the cost participation policy and provide any applicable comments for each area.

• I have no experiences with this part of the policy
• I have been satisfied with the local share negotiated or

proposed by MnDOT for this part of the policy and have no changes to recommend

• I have not been satisfied with the local share negotiated or

proposed by MnDOT for this part of the policy or I have changes to recommend Please describe the nature of issues you experienced and/or changes you would recommend:

Right-of-Way Acquisition

Roadways including Parking, Intersections, Roundabouts, and Frontage Roads

Interchanges or Grade Separations, including Pedestrian Bridges

Drainage, including Ponds and Storm Sewers

Street Lighting

Signals and Intelligent Transportation Systems

Sidewalks or Bikeways or Shared Use Paths

Aesthetic Elements or Surface Treatments

Noise Walls or Retaining Walls

Utilities (Collected input but not included in the cost participation policy)

Oth ther Stru tructure/Areas:

• Project initiation
• Historic Bridges
• LED STOP signs - maintenance
• Maintenance of a TH
• Applying for sign placement of organizations
• Maintenance Responsibilities
• Paying for and maintaining bike lockers and

racks at strategic locations

• Roadway Approaches to Trunk Highways
• Guard rail on mndot bridges or protecting

mndot facilities

 Specific comments provided for each

policy component

 Survey comments are being combined

with comments received at workshops

1.

Any reactions to any of the information in the presentation?

1.

Regarding MnDOT’s interpretation of the constitution, give examples cases where MnDOT does not minimize the local share or pays too much.

2.

For each policy category, what situations under the existing policy that raise the most challenges for local agencies?

3.

Any feedback on current philosophy about maintenance costs?

4.

What changes would reasonably minimize local costs?

5.

If those changes are made, how should MnDOT respond to the higher Trunk Highway funded costs of construction?