CR 93-147 Objection To Changes Roadway Projects
(? ~\
, . ',1 Y 0 I
~ ' , ,
..
-y "0
. ' August 31, 1993 0 P K \ ~ Council Report No. 93--147
OBJECTION TO CHANGES IN HENNEPIN COUNTY
FUNDING POLICIES FOR ROADWAY PROJECTS
Proposed Action:
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: "Move to adopt
Resolution 93-92. requesting Hennepin County commissioners to
reject proposed cost participation changes in their current
highway funding pOlicy. dated June 1978."
overview.
Hennepin County is currently considering amending their 1978
policy for cost participation on cooperative highway projects.
The proposed changes would increase a ci ty' s share of roadway
projects over what currently exists in the present policy. In
addition, one of the more troublesome policy changes relates to a
city'S use of tax increment financing to pay for the local share.
The proposed policy is intended to strongly discourage cities
from using tax increment funds for its share of the project.
This discouragement is accomplished by significantly increasing
the local community's share of the project if tax increment
dollars are used. The changes as proposed would have significant
impacts on Hopkins ability to participate in an improvement
. project such as county Road 3.
primary Issues to Consider
o Why is the County considering changes to their existing
funding policy?
o What are the proposed funding changes?
o How will the proposed funding changes effect Hopkins?
o What can be done to oppose these proposed changes?
su~portinq Information
,
o Detailed Background
o Analysis of Issues
o Resolution 93-92
o Proposed cost Participation Policy
.d~
n~.LeeGustaf n, ,..... licWorks Director
..
"
'i
Council Report No. 93-147
Page 2
~ Detailed Backqround
In 1978, Hennepin County established parameters for determining
an appropriate division of cost participation to be used by the
County in funding cooperati ve roadway and street construction
projects within municipalities. Since this time municipalities
have adhered to Hennepin County's participation .policy and
cooperated with the county in many construction projects.
Municipalities have furthermore established long range capital
improvement programs including improvements to County Roads based
upon receipt of county funds as outlined in their 1978 policy.
Analysis of Issues
o Why is the County considering changes to their existing
funding policy?
The qounty is claiming that changes are needed to reduce the
County's participation in cooperative construction projects.
Their justification for this proposed reduction is based on
their belief that County property tax funds are becoming
increasingly limited. If the proposed changes are adopted,
the tax burden is shifted once again from a higher level
down to the city.
o What are the proposed funding changes?
. A copy of the proposed funding changes are attached. The
major changes are with respect to street lights, sidewalks,
utility relocation, and Tax Increment Financing use. The
proposed changes to the use of Tax Increment Financing on a
cooperative construction project does, however have the most
impact on Hopkins.
It appears that the county's proposed policy relative to the
use of tax increment financing is a misguided attempt to
punish municipalities attempting to improve conditions in
areas of need. When in fact the expenditure of tax
increment financing will ultimately result in higher
property ntaxmreceipts for the County. Further" ifn tax
increment financing is utilized under the proposed policy,
the cost of the project to the City will increase, thereby
potentially increasing the amount of tax increment financing
used, which in turn may delay the time period upon which
properties can be returned to the tax rolls.
o How will the proposed funding changes effect aopkins?
The proposed changes would have significant impacts on
Hopkins ability to participate in construction projects
especially if tax increment financing was to be used to help
> fund the ci ty' s share of the proj ect. In the case of
. upgrading County Road 3, the proposed policy would increase
the city's share to approximately 1.5 - 2 million dollars.
., .
Council Report No. 93-147
Page 3
. 0 What can be done to oppose these proposed changes?
Staff has asked all the other cities within Hennepin County
to review the proposed changes closely, and to send letters
or resolutions to the county commissioners opposing the
changes if they feel the same way we do. Hopkins City
Council can do their part in opposing these changes by
adopting the attached resolution, and attending the pUblic
hearing on this matter.
.
,
.
- u
.~
~ CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 93-92
RESOLUTION REGARDING HENNEPIN COUNTY
FUNDING OF COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY PROJECTS
WHEREAS, in a policy dated June, 1978, Hennepin County
established parameters for determining an appropriate
division of cost participation to be used by the County
in funding cooperative roadway and street construction
projects with municipalities; and
WHEREAS, since 1978 municipalities within the county have
accepted said policy and cooperated with the County in
the construction and reconstruction of county roads and
highways; and
WHEREAS, m~nicipalities have established capital improvement
programs which contemplate the improvement of county
roads and highways based upon the receipt of county
funds as outlined in said policy; and
." WHEREAS, in a draft policy dated June, 1993 the County proposes
a number of changes to the established parameters
contained in the June, 1978 policy; and
WHEREAS, most of the changes between the existing June 1978
policy and draft June, 1993 policy provide for a
reduction of the County's cost participation in the
funding of cooperative roadway and street construction
projects within municipalities; and
WHEREAS, the draft June, 1993 policy includes a provision which,
by the county's. own admission, is intended to
discourage the use of tax increment financing for the
municipal share of a project, and when used, to
require a high municipal cost share; and
WHEREAS, the cost di vision parameters contained in the June,
1978 policy have been accepted as an appropriate
division of cost participation to be used by the County
and as a resul t has been the basis for long range
capi tal improvement planning by the ci ty of Hopkins;
and
.
\
,
>
Resolution 93-92
Page 2
.~ WHEREAS, the implementation of this policy will encourage
development in the rural or underdeveloped areas of the
County and cause disinvestment in the developed areas
as well as deterioration of existing facilities due to
the County's disparate funding formula. This disparity
is due to the reduction in the percentage of funding
for the developed areas of the county versus the rural
areas; and
WHEREAS, the County's claim that a reduction in cost
, participation by the county is justified because of the
fact that County property tax funds are becoming
increasingly limited is, in fact, unjustified because
in reducing its participation, the County would shift
the tax burden to the City, and
WHEREAS, the County's proposed policy relative to the use of tax
increment financing is a misguided attempt to punish
municipalities attempting to improve conditions in
areas of need, when in fact, the expenditure of tax
increment financing will ultimately result in higher
property tax receipts for the County. Further, if tax
increment financing is utilized, the costs of the
proj ect to the city will, increase, thereby potentially
increasing the amount of tax increment financing used,
which in turn may delay the time period upon which
. properties can be returned to the tax rolls.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of
Hopkins, Minnesota that:
For the aforementioned reasons, the Hennepin County
commissioners are urged to reject the proposed June, 1993 policy
and retain the June 1978 policy as an equitable means of
establishing an appropriate division of cost participation to be
used by the County in funding cooperative roadway and street
construction projects with municipalities.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTA,
this 7th day of September, 1993.
BY
Charles Redepenning, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jim Genellie, city Clerk
.
.~ .
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS'
. 320 Washington Avenue South
HENNEPIN Hopkinsl Minnesota 55343-8468
PHONE: (612) 930-2500 .
FAX (612) 930-2513
TDD: (612) 930-2696
August 26, 1993
Mr. Lee Gustafson
Director of Public Works
CITY OF HOPKI NS
1010 First Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343
REVISED POLICIES FOR COST PARTICIPATION
BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND OTHER AGENCIES
FOR COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY PROJECTS
Dear Mr. Gustafson:
On June 18, 1993, your agency was sent a draft copy of the revised
"Policies for Cost Participation Between Hennepin County and Oth~r Agencies
. for Cooperative Highway Projects", dated June, 1993. Subsequent to the
distribution of that document, it was determined that there was a need to
add or change the language in the following three areas for clarification
purposes:
1) SECTION III - PREMISES, a new Paragraph "0" was add~d.
2) SECTION V - ROADWAYS
In Paragraph A - RIGHT OF WAY, language was added
regarding right of way required for wetland mitigation
and for surface water retention basins.
In Paragraph 0 - STORM SEWER, language was added
regarding construction of retention basins for surface
water and storm sewer runoff.
3) SECTION IX - BIKEWAYS, the language of this section was changed to
reflect participation in bicycle lanes or routes and
in bicycle paths.
Attached is a draft copy of the revised "Policies for Cost Participation
Between Hennepin County and Other Agencies for Cooperative Highway
Projects", dated August, 1993, which reflects the above referenced
revisions.
.
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opportunity employer
,.' .
. August 26, 1993
Page Two
As previously indicated, a public hearing on these revised policies will be
held before the Public Service Committee of the Hennepin County Board of
Commissioners on Thursday, September 9, 1993 at 10:00 a.m. in Room A-2400
of the Hennepin County Government Center.
If you have any questions regarding these policies, please contact me at
930-2506.
Sincerely,
~~zr/l~~
Patri ck B. Murphy, P. E.
Director
------- ~Attachment~~ ~---
cc: County Commissioners
James Bourey, County Administrator
Vern T. Genzlinger, Associate County Administrator
.
"
, ~!
.
.
'.
~;.,
.
HENNEPIN COUNTY
BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
POLICIES FOR COST PARTICIPATION
BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTYANDOTHER'AGENCIES
FOR COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY PROJECTS
AUGUST, 1993
.
.
.'
.'
.
INTRODUCTION
The attached pol i c Les for cost parti ci pati on wi 11 be used by
Hennepin County to determine appropriate funding levels for
cooperative highway projects with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, municipalities and other agencies.
The prior cost policies were established by Hennepin County in
1978 and are being changed primarily as a result of the fact that
County Property Tax funds are becoming increasingly limited and,
in many cases, are not available to be used on a project.
Therefore, County participation must be limited as much as
possible to those items that are eligible for state Aid funding.
A change has been made in the area of traffic signal
participation. As traffic volumes increase, the County is being
faced with an expanding number of intersections where traffic
signals are warranted in accordance with the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices. Installing and maintaining all traffic
signals which meet warrants places a strain on both the Capital
. Budget and the Operating Budget. The County must, therefore, be
more selective in terms of which traffic signals are installed and
the ~xtent of County participation.
A change has also been made to address the use of Tax Increment
Financing on County projects by~unicipalities. One reason that
County Property Tax funds are limited is that the tax base is not
expanding due to use of Tax Increment Financing. Since the use of
the Tax Increment Financing does have a negative impact on County
Property Tax funds, the established poliCY is intended to
discourage the use of Tax Increment Financing for the municipal
share of a project and, where used, to require a higher municipal
cost share.
.
.
.
. TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1
SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1
PREMISES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. ',Page 1
DEFINITIONS .. .' ._... . . _. .. . . . . . .. . . ... Page 2
ROADWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3
" RIGHT OF WAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3
GRADING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3
SURFAC ING . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3
STORM SEWER . .'. . . . . . . . . . ',' . . . . . . . Page 3
CONCRETE SIDEWALK CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT . . . . . . . . .. . . . . Page 4
. . ',- - ' CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER (NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED)
CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT . . Page 4
- -- - _,__~_n_n" '- ." -CONCRETE-CURB AND GUTTER - AND SIDEWALK FORMEDIANS"
(NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED) CONCURRENT WITH
COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . Page 4
. CONCRETE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES (NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED)
CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. . Page 4
MUNICIPAL AND PRIVATE UTILITY RELOCATION OR
RECONSTRUCTION (ABOVE/BELOW GROUND). . . . . . Page 4
TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS ._ . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4
PERMANENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM INSTALLATIONS . . . . Page 5
RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS . . Page 5
TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS . . . . . . . Page 5
BRIDGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . Page 6
STREET LIGHTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6
BIKEWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6
LANDSCAPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6
ENGINEERING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7
LUMP SUM, PRO~RATA ITEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7
UTILIZATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING . . . . . . . . . . Page 7
.
- -----~.- -- ----------"-- - - -- ,-- . - - -- - .
_u_ -
,
.
HENNEPIN COUNTY
. BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
POLICIES FOR COST PARTICIPATION
BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND OTHER AGENCIES
FOR COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY PROJECTS
-- -- ~--- ----- ~- --- -- --.----- -- -----"--- -"--.--
I. PURPOSE
To establish policies for determining appropriate division of cost
participation to be used by Hennepin County in funding cooperative roadway,
traffic signal and bridge construction projects with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, municipalities and other agencies.
II. SCOPE
The establishment of cost policy is consistent with Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 162.17, J73.01, 471.59 and Amendments.
eu
I I 1. PREMISES
A. The basic premise is that the County pays for costs peculiar to
County needs and municipalities pay for costs peculiar to municipal or local
needs.
---------- ~B~-On-the- County- State-A id -Highway (CSAH)System-,-the-Courrty;-s-------- ___u_____ nun__
participation may be limited to the County's State Aid eligibility. In
order for the County to utilize CSAH funds to the fullest extent, the
municipality may be precluded from using Municipal State Aid funds for
certain elements of its project costs.
C. A greater degree of County participation is afforded municipalities
having a population of less than 5,000 because of the function of the County
..", roadways in these areas. Itis generally true that these roadways are of
greater benefit to County-wide users and of less benefit to local users than
is the case for roadways in more urbanized areas. In addition, this would
be a form of compensation for the absence of direct State Aid allocations to
these municipalities; notWithstanding the present County program of Aid to
Municipalities under 5,000 population.
D. It is recognized that there may be occasional differences between these
policies and written participation policies of the Minnesota Department of
".... Transportation. In those cases, participation will be negotiated by the
County Engineer.
Page 1
"
,
IV. DEFINITIONS
Accident Severity Factor: One element of the County's Traffic Signal .
Ranking System. This factor is used to measure the relative severity of
accidents by differentiating between property ~amageand personal injury
accidents in terms of cost.
Bikeway: A bicycle route, bicycle path, or bicycle lane.
1. Bicycle Route. A roadway or shoulder signed to encourage bicycle
use.
2. Bicycle Path. A bicycle facility designed for exclusive or
preferential use by persons using bicycles and constructed or developed
separately from the roadway or shoulder.
3. Bicycle Lane. A portion of a roadway or shoulder designed for
exclusive or preferential use by persons using bicycles. Bicycle lanes are
to be distinguished from the portion of the roadway or shoulder used for
motor vehicle traffic by physical barrier, striping, marking, or other
similar device.
Contributinq Flow: A storm sewer procedure that considers that each agency
participates in proportion to its share of the design discharge for each section
of sewer between inflow points. This method is used by the Minnesota Office of
State Aid on all projects except where federal participation is anticipated.
County: Hennepin County. .
County Enqineer: The County Engineer of Hennepin County or his designated
representative.
Municipal ity: Any municipality or township within Hennepin County.
Over 5.000: A municipality of 5,000 population or more.
Peak Discharqe: A storm sewer method that considers that each agency's share is
the ratio of its peak discharge through each section of sewer between inflow
points to the summation of peak discharge for all agencies participating in the
section of sewer between inflow points.
Permanent Traffic SiQnal: A traffic control signal system normally consisting
of metal signal poles with mast arms and underground electrical systems with
conduit, cable and handhole installations.
Priority Factor: A number which reflects the sum of the traffic volume factor,
the accident susceptibility factor, and the accident severity factor in the
County's Traffic Signal Ranking System.
Storm Sewer: A drainage system usually consisting of one or more pipes
connecting two or more drop inlets. The purpose is to convey surface runoff
water from the inlets to an acceptable outlet.
Street Liqhtinq: All components normally installed by a municipality for the. ----
purpose of street illumination.
Page 2
-~-------~--------.~------ ---
V aO'ed
'swelSAS l'eUO~S J~}J'eJl JO}
.lSOJ U~ al'edp~lJt!d Ol paJ~nbaJ aq lOU lUM All'eWJOUOOO'SJapun saqq'edp~unw
'walSAS
5uPlu'e~ l'eu5~S JH}'eJl 84l u~ SJOp'e} a4l uodn 5u~puadep IiJt!A At!W UO~l'edp~lJt!d
AlUnO] JO Sluawala awos 'uo~HPPt! ul 'Ot ut!4l ssal JO JOlJt!J Al~JO~Jd
t! ~llM suo~lJasJalU~ It! slt!u6~s J~JJt!Jl 'pallelsu~ aq 0+ MOtl'e JO 'll'e+su~
Iillt!WJOU lOU ll~M AlUnO] a4l 'AJ~lOd It!Jauafi 'e s~ '(luaUewJad pUt! AJt!Jodwal
4loq) Slt!u5~s :>~}}t!Jl Mau JOJ sap~Jo~Jd au~wJelap Ol paz~Uln aq lUM walsAs
s~41 'Al~JaAaS pU'e Al~l~q~ldaJsns lUap~JJ'e pUt! sawnloA J~}}t!Jl sl:>aLJaJ 4:>~4M
walSAS 6u~~ue~ l'eufi~S J~}}t!Jl 'e padolaAap st!4 AlUnO] a41 'UO~lt!d~:>~lJt!d IilUnOj
JO ulualxa a4l pUt! pall'elsu~ aJ'e Sl'eu6~s:>HJt!Jl 4:>~4M JO SWJal u~ aA~palas aJOW
aq 'aJoJaJa4l 'lsnw AlUnO] a41 'spaau Al~J()~Jd Ja46~4Uopasn ^1alt!~JdoJdd'e
aJOW spunJ aJut!ualu~'ew pUt! uO~l:>nJlSuo:> sawnsuo:> pU'e walsAs At!M46~4 AlunoJ a4+
uo :>~Ht!Jl 6U~AOW JO AJUap~JJa a4l sa:>npaJ stt?U5~s :>~}J'e...q palu'eJJl?M AU'eu~5J'ew
JO ~on'ell'elsUl 'saJ ~Aea lOJluoJ J ~}:J.t!Jl w...wn Un uo renut!W a4l 4HM a:>u'epJOJJ'e
u~ palU'eJJt!M aJ'e slt!u5~s :>~JJ~Jl BJa4M suo~l:>aSJalUl JO daqwnu 5u~pu'edxa
ue 4l~M pa:>t!} 5u~aq s~ AlUno] a4l 'ast!aJJu~ sawn lOA :>~JJt!Jl s~ :att!uo~lt!Cl
SW31SAS lVN9IS JI~~V~l ' I ^
%0 (ONnO~~ M013Sj3hOSV)
NOIl]n~lSNOJ3~ ~O NOIlVJ013~ AlI1Iln 3lVhI~d aNV lVdI]INnW ' I
%05 000'5 JaAO
.' %SL 000'5 JapUn
1]3rO~d NOIl]nHlSNOJ AINnOJ HlIM
lN3~~nJNO] (a3lJn~lSNOJ3H ~O M3N) S3JN~~lN3 ^~M3^IHa 3l3HJNOJ 'H
%001 IJ3rO~d NOIIJn~lSNOJ AlNnOJ H1IM lN3~ClnJNOJ (03l]nCllSNO]3Cl
~O M3N) SNVI03W ClOJ ~lVM30IS ONV ~3llnB aN~ SClnJ 313~JNOJ 'B
%05 OOO'S JaAO
%SL OOO'S JapUn
lJ3rOHd NOIlJn~lSNOJ AlNnOJ
HlIM IN3~~n]NOJ (a3lJn~lSNOJ3~ ~O M3N) ~3lln~ ON~ S~nJ 313ClJNOJ 'J
-- ----
ssal s~ JaAa4:>~4M %001
Jo Al~l~q~o~l3 P~V alt!lS 000'5 JaAO/JapUn - lUaWaJt!ldaCl
%0 000'5 JaAO/JapUn - MaN
l]3rO~d NOI1Jn~lSNOJ AlNnO] HIIM IN3~~nJNOJ ~1~M3aIS 313MJNOJ '3
%05 ODD'S JeAO
%001 000'5 JapUn
'slit!M46~4
AlUnO] a4+ OluO u~t!Jp l'e4l SaJUt!JlUa Iit!Mpt!oJ ap~s JO SUJnlaJ qJn:>
a4l It! pUt! SAt!M46~4 AlUnO] a4l u~4l~M sPt!alput! su~st!q 4:>lt!J '2
MOlJ 6u~lnq~JluoJ s,AlUnO] JO %OS OOO'S JaAO
MOlJ fiu~lnq~JluoJ s,AlunoJ JO %Oot ODD'S JapUn
. sau q )tunJl ' I
panu~luo:> - M3M3S W~OlS '0
SAVMOVOCl '^
.,
,. <
.
E aBed
'sau~l JaMaS WJ01S ~UnJ1
a41 se o~+eJ uO~led~J~lJ~d aWES a41 1E aq ll~M pue wa1sAs JaMaS WJ01S "e
~UnJ1 a41 JO 1JEd paJap~suoJ aq ll~M JJounJ JaMaS WJ01S pUE J81EM
aJEJJnS JOJ su~seq uO~lUalaJ JO UO~lJnJ1SUOJ a41 'spunJ p~~ alE1S
alqEMollE JO afiElUaJJad a41 1E aA~JJe01 pasn S~ ElnWJO] aBJE4Js~P
~ead a41 aJa4M slJafoJd papun] AllEJapa] UO ldaJxa SMolJ fiu~lnq~J1UOJ
JO O~lEJ a41 sasn 4J~4M 509-009'268-5 'oN lEnuEW p~~ a1E1S u~ pau~Jap
SE ElnwJoJ p~~ a1E1S a41 uo pasEq s~ UO~lEd~J~lJEd s,A1Uno) a41
H3M3S W~01S '0
'Al~lEd~J~unw E Aq pa1SanbaJ
sauEl BU~~JEd JOBU~JEJJnS u~ a+Ed~J~~JEd lOU ll~M AlunoJ 941
%Oot OOO'S JaAo/Japun
9NIJV~~nS 'J
%Oot ' OOO'S JaAo/Japun
9Nla~~8 'S
"lJ8foJd a4+ 01 snonfi~lUOJ 10U aJE
sa~l~l~JEJ asa41 JO SUO~lEJOl 841 J~ U8^a lJ8foJd 841 JO JapU~EWaJ
a41 SE O~lEJ UO~lEdIJ~lJEd awes a41 le aq ll~M SU~SEq uo~+u81aJ
Ja1EM aJEJJnS JOJ pUE UO~lE6~1~W PUEl1aM JOJ paJ~nbaJ AEM JO +45~H
"AEM JO +46~J JOJ SE aWES a41 aq ll~M AEM JO 146~J
JO na~l U~ pa1JnJlSUOJSllEM 6u~U~ElaJ U~ UO~~Ed~J~+JEd s,AlunoJ 841
'Al~lEd~J~unw E Aq palSanbaJ
sauEl BU~~JEd JOJ AEM JO 146~J u~ alEd~J~lJEd lOU ll~MAlunoJ a41
%05 OOO'S JaAO . -
%Oot ODD'S JapUn
AVM JO 1H9IH '~
:sMolloJ SE aq ll~M SlJ8fOJd AEMpEOJ u~ UO~lEd~J~+JEd S,^lUno) a41
SAVMOVO~ "^
'J18 'SJ~ldo J8q~J '5u~l45~l laaJ1S '4dEJ6ala1 '^I alqeJ
'au04dalal 'AJel~UES 'sEfi 'JaMaS WJ01S 'J~J1Jala '6u~lEa4 'JalEM ;sa~l~l~ln
'uo~lElndod 000'5 Japun d~4SUMOl JO A1~lEd~J~unw ~ :000'5 JapUn
'wa1sAs JaMaS WJ01S JO JOAaAUOJ u~ew :au~l ~unJ1
" "SWa1SAs lEJ~J1Jala
pEa4Ja^0 pUE SaJ~M UEds uo papuadsns SUO~lEJ~pU~ lEU5~s 4l~M salod pOOM JO
fiu~+s~sUOJ ALlEWJOU wa1sAs lEUfi~s lOJ1UOJ J~JJEJl ~ :lEUb~S J~JJEJ1 AJeJoowa1
'E+osauu~w JO a1E1S a41 JO UO~lJ~pS~Jnr Japun AEM4fi~4 ~ :^EM4b~H alElS
'saJnpaJoJd pUE Sa~J~lod p~~ alE1S 5u~u~Llno UO~lE1JodsUEJ1
JO lUaWlJedao e1osauu~w a41 Aq pa4s~lqnd lenuEW :lEnuew p~~ a1E1S
'olaJa41 .
1uawalddns JO/pUE uO~l~pa lsalEl 'uo~+JnJ1SUO) AEM45~H JOJ SUO~lEJ~J~Jads
pJEpUE1S UO~lElJodsUEJ1 JO lUaw1JEdao E1osauu~w :suo~lEJ~J~JaaS pJepUE1S
panu~lUOJ - SNOIIINI~3a '^I .
e.,
,
"
^
~ . t
VI. TRAFFIC uSIGNALSYSTEMS -meont i nued"
The County's participation in traffic signal projects with the Minnesota
. Department of Transportation, municipalities over 5,000 and other agencies will
be as follows:
A. Permanent Traffic Signal System Installations:
The County will not normally install, or allow to be installed, traffic
signals at intersections with a priority factor of less than 30.
At locations where traffic signals are warranted and have a priority factor
of 30 or more in the County's Traffic Signal Ranking System, the
construction costs shall be pro-rated as follows. The construction costs
include all of the control equipment and standards, signal heads and related
items, but does not include the costs of interconnect cable, conduit, and
--- - ,--handholes unecessary -toucoordinate traffic signals between intersections.
These interconnect costs will be 100% County cost.
l. No Trunk Highways involved if:
Two legs of the intersection or less State Aid Eligibility or
are County roadways. u .'_ 25% Whichever is Less
Three legs or more of the State Aid Eligibility or
intersection are County roadways 50% Whichever is Less
2. Trunk Highways involved if:
. One leg is a County roadway State Aid Eligibility or
12 1/2% Whichever is Less
Two legs are County roadways State Aid Eligibility or
25% Whichever is Less
B. Reconstruction of Existing Traffic Signal Systems
Where existin9 traffic signals are upgraded by installation of a new system,
the County's share shall be twice that shown in Paragraph A of Item No. VI.
C. Temporary Traffic Signal Installations
The municipality will pay the full cost of a temporary traffic signal and will
-not receiveanyttedit for those costs when a permanent traffic signal is
,i nsta 11 ed if the acci dent severity factor is 1 ess than 10. For those temporal
trafficsfgnal pro}ec:fsuwith- all accident severity factor of 10 or more, the
municipality will receive credit for 50% of the cost of the temporary traffic
signal when the permanent traffic signal is installed.
The costs for temporary traffic signals installed onl'y for traffic control
during construction of a County project shall be paid 100% by the County.
------ -- ---- Electrical-power shall be furnisllec! by the municipality.-Soutce-of- ---
D.
. power, including transformer, shall be provided by the municipality.
E. Maintenance for all traffic signals on County roadways shall be
furnished by the County when the County is the road authority.
Page 5
. u.__ ____ ___ _. ____
,
., /~-"
VI. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS - continued
F. The entire cost of necessary equipment~ installation and maintenance _
of any traffi c si gna 1 emergency preemption equi pment wi 11 be borne by the .
municipality.
G. Costs for County furnished equipment such as, but not limited to,
controller cabinets, mast arms, poles, etc. will be apportioned
the same as the traffic signal installationjreconstruction costs.
H. When street lighting is integral to the traffic signal pole, the
cost will be included with installation.
VI I. BRIDGES
The County's participation in bridge projects will be as follows:
Under/Over 5,000 Negotiation by County Engineer
VIII. STREET LIGHTING
The County will not participate in the installation of new street lighting or
in the relocation of existing street lighting.
. -..-
IX. BIKEWAYS
Hennepin County encourages the increased use ~fbicycles as a means of
transportation. To that purpose, it will incorporate bicycle lanes or
routes within the roadway design at 100% County cost whenever feasible.
Bicycle paths separate from the roadway itself would normally not be
constructed unless it were part of an overall community plan for a
bicycle trail system. This policy provides that the cost of bicycle
paths would be a shared responsibility between the County and the
municipal ity.
x. LANDSCAPING
The County will participate in landscaping for replacement only to the extent of
State Aid participation and limited to one percent (1%) of the total cost of the
construction project. Participation is limited tea two to one r7placement on.
trees. The County will not participate in the landscaping of med1an areas or 1n
irrigation system costs.
.
Page 6
,~~i,;fik,'<1\:;'k"'\;';:"l:>'h'~;,:f-'(',,,; -~'An:.jrJ~~~1t!tli.'i1*:\l<,~)!~",,;t:r-~'":/i---''''' ,~;....."
, ..
,>
XI. ENGINEERING
The County's participati~n in engineering includes design costs which are cost
. incurred prior to the award of the contract and contract administration costs
which are costs incurred subsequent to the award of contract.
A. Design and/or Contract Administration performed by the County and
based on the municipality's share of contract construction.
Under/Over 5,000 *Negotiation by County Engineer
B. Design,andjor Contract Administration performed by the municipality
and based on the County's share of contract construction.
UnderjOver 5,000 *Negotiation by County Engineer
* Based on current Hennepin County costs.
XI!. LUMP SUM, PRO-RATA ITEMS
Proposal forms carry lump sum bidding requirements for the items of
Mobilization (2021), Maintenance and Restoration of Haul Roads (2051) and
Traffi c Control (0563). Field Office and Field Laboratory (2031) are not,
strictly speaking, lump sum pay items. However, their general
characteristics are such as to requite that they be handled the same as
Mobilization. A municipality shall be charged a pro-rata share of the aboVe
items. Proration shall be based on a percentage factor applied to the cost
amounts chargeable to the County and the municipality for other construction
em items. Mobilization, Maintenance and Restoration of Haul Roads, Field Office
and Field Laboratory, and Traffic Control are construction items and shall be
subJect to the negotialedpercer1tagecharge for engineering.
After bids have been received and a contract awarded, and also upon
completion of construction, the unit prices shall be substituted for the
estimated unit prices/quantities and the percentage ratio established
originally shall be recomputed.
XU I 'cUTILIZATION Of TJ\X INCREMENT FINANCING
Rationale: This policy has been included to address the use of Tax Increment
Financing on County projects by municipalities. Tax Increment Financing
limits expansion of the tax base for new development and, thereby, limits the
availability of additional County Property Tax funding which might be used on
the County highway system. The County does not have a voice as to whether
Tax Increment Districts will be created nor the length of time that the tax
increment will be in effect. Since the use of Tax Increment Financing does
have a negative impact on County Property Tax funds, the established policy
is intended to discourage the use of Tax Increment Financing and, where used
for the municipal share of a County project, to require a higher municipal
cost share.
.
Page 7
.. . - ;;;
~
XIII. UTILIZATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING--- continued
The County's participation in a project where Tax Increment Financing is .
utilized by a municipality will be as follows:
At the time a municipality is requested to approve the preliminary plans for
a project, the municipality must identify, by resolution, the source of funds
for municipal participation. If the municipality elects to use Tax Increment
Financing for any portion of the project, municipal participation in the
construction cost will be 50% of the total engineering and construction cost
and 100% of the right of way cost for the project.
.,.
.
-.
Page 8
~~~ffi!!\\\;:t'!,~,:,',~~~)i,'!,\ii;'\'1':';:.,~ \"""'''l\t'''?k~i%,IH$.trJ1!Ln1r1;rJ''lliff@n . ';