ITEM 6.1 Cost Sharing Policy w/ Wright CountyOtCITYOF 0
MINNESOTA 9
DEPARTMENT INFORMATION
Request for'
City Council Action
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
Administration
REQUESTOR:
Lori Johnson, City Administrator
MEETING DATE:
September 23., 2013
PRESENTER(s):
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM #:
Lori Johnson, City Administrator
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
6,1
Ron Wagner., City Engineer
Dan Licht, City Planner
Dan Licht, City Planner
Ron Wagner, City Engineer
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
RECOMMENDATION,
Respond to a request for input from the Wright County Board and County Engineer Virgil Hawkins on
Wright County's Cost Sharing Policy (Policy) with adoption of a resolution and exhibit setting forth
-Otsego's recommended changes to the Policy.
ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT? IS A PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED?
No No
BAC KGROUNDIJUSTIFICATION:
The Wright County Board of Commissioners has directed the County Engineer to gather input from
Wright County cities and townships as part of the Boards process of updating the Wright County Cost
Sharing Policy that was last updated in 1993. Obviously, Wright County has changed considerably since
1993; urban growth has become the norm in the eastern part of the County bringing with it increased
population and significant increases in the County's market value (tax base). Wright County is now one
of the fastest growing counties in the State and is poised for significant economic development due to
its proximity to the Twin Cities and St. Cloud.
When the Policy was adopted in 1993, the County's cost participation was determined by the size and
type of jurisdiction. Townships and cities under 5,000 in population benefitted greatly from more
transportation fu nd ing f rorn the Co u nty for projects within their jurisdictions+ Eve n in 1993 that PoIicy
was not fair and reasonable to the larger cities that were then also generating a larger share of the
County's property tax revenue. Clearly, the inequity of funding more of the costs for townships and
small cities is not acceptable in 2013 and beyond.
To be clear, in no way is Otsego attempting to reduce or take away funding from the townships and
cities under 5,000 in population; rather, Otsego is asking for funding equity across all cities and
townships in the County.
The Public Works Subcommittee reviewed the Policy in detail at its September meeting and
recommended changes and additions to the Policy. In reviewing the Policy and developing the City's
recommended Policy changes, the main consideration was to create equity and fairness among all local
jurisdictions Ynthe County regardless of size and type. |naddition, the cost sharing policies of other
counties, including the data provided by County Engineer Virgil Hawkins, were taken into consideration.
Please see Exhibit A to the resolution for a detailed list of the Public Works Subcommittee's
recommended changes and funding ite0additioD8. Pedestrian facilities including regionalbaUfund/ng
and cross walk striping were added tothe Policy along with signage. Also added was Gfunding item for
Federal and State funding that |sreceived bwthe County for aproject pertiaUypakjforbmanother1oca|
jurisdiction. Currently, the County receives the benefit ofall ofthat funding. The recommendation 1s
that such funding should benefit not just the County, but all jurisdictions that are paying for the project.
As I stated earlier, many of the changes are recommended to eliminate the current funding inequity
between the two formulas.
Further, while the Public Works subcommittee did not make arecommendation regarding the County
right ofway policy, the Council may want 10consider recommending changes |nthe designation ofe
project by the County as "developer driven" wherein all rihtofwaycostserethentobecovenadb«the
City, such as the right of way which was all acquired by the City for the CSAH 42 improvements in front
of Great River Centre. The Council also may want to consider recommending that there be County cost
participation inright ofway acquisition for City street improvement projects thatareschedu|edto
become County roads.
The importance of recommending Policy changes is shared among other cities |DWright County as well.
This was the topic of the August Wright County City Administrators meeting at which County Engineer
Virgil Hawkins spoke about the Policy and the opportunity torequest change. All ofthe cities
represented were in support of requesting changes to the policy.
Finally, city and township input on and recommended changes to the Policy are due to the County
Engineer by October 11. Therefore, to meet that schedule, the Public Works Subcommittee i's
recommending that the City Council review and adopt the attached resolution formally requesting
changes tothe Wright County Cost Sharing Policy. |fyou have changes and additions tothe resolution
and attached exhibit after review, please make those changes a1the meeting for inclusion before
adoption. Public Works Subcommittee Members Vern Heldner and Doug Schroeder as well as the City
Attorney, City Engineer, City Planner, and | will be prepared for discussion and to answer your questions
atthe Council meeting. Wright County isplanning toschedule ameeting (nthe next month ortwo for
purposes ofreviewing the input received. Council members are encouraged toattend that meeting to
support the City's position.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: xo*l7ACHsD owome
0 Wright County Cost Sharing Policy
m Letter from Virgil Hawkins, Wright County Engineer
0 Resolution 2Ol3'51including Exhibit A
POSSIBLE MOTION
�o�onommu�nmo�mnomu�mu�m�o�mmommu�o
Motion to adopt Resolution 2013 -51 Responding to Request for Input from Otsego on the Proposed
and, further, requesting that the resolution be forwarded to the Wright County Board arid Wright
Caunty Engineer.
BUDGET INFORMATION
FUNDING.RUDIGETFD� ci YES
N1W cj NO
ACTION TAKEN.
r
n APPROVED AS REQUESTED n DENIED ci TABLED ci OTHER (List changes)
COMMENTS:
WRIGHT COUN'T'Y
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
M
0 Wright County Public Works Building
0 1901'Highway 25 North
7j3 ES 6 .4y Buffaloo MN - 55313
Jet. T.H. 25 and C.R. 138
:Telephone: (763) 682-7383
FAX: (763) 682-7313
Date: July 12., 2013
To: Wright County Cities & Wright County Townsill
Frohn.g Virgil H ' awkins, P.E., all
V
Wright County Highway ngineer
R E Wright County 'Cost- Sharing Policy Update
VI IL G. RAWKJNSY P.E.
Highway Engineer
(7631682-7388
CHAS] 'D. HAUSAIANNOPM
Assistant Highway Engineer
(763) 682-7387
MARK A. JOHNSON
Right -of -Way Agent
(763) 682-7386
We are writing to you to invite your City/Township to become an active participant in the process of updating
the Wright County Cost -Sharing P01iCy (fOr COUnty Highway construction projects).
The Wright County Board has directed us to begin the process of updating our Construction Cost -Sharing Policy
(that was last updated in 1993).
The objectives for the policy update include.
I. Update theCost-Sharing Policy to include missing elements like Roundabouts, Electric/Specialty Signs,
Trails, ' Land . scaping, Aesthetic Treatments, Pedestrian Ramps (A[ A) & any other items that are
ide I ntified through this'Inpuk gathering process.
I
2. Develop an updated Cost -Sharing Policy to include both conventional projects (projects that are
included in our 5 -Year or 10 -Year Work Plan); and a separate written policy to address development
driven projects. Past practice for devel6pnient driven projects has been negotiation (generally with
no county participation Unless the segment of highway affected was included in our 5 -Year Plan).
I Ensure a fair and'consistent approach for all projects regardless of location.
4. Remove uncertainty so that cities and developers understand county expectations related to cost
share for improver encs oil county highways needed to accommodate development,
Please find enclosed a spreadsheet that shows how the existing Wright C.pui.ity Cost -Sharing Policy compares
to the policies of adjacent and/or similar sized counties.
Wright County will schedule a public meeting late summer, early fall this year for PLIrPOSeS of receiving input
about possible changes and updates to our current policy. You will be given advance notice of this meeting, to
attend and provide input. Feel free to send written input/comments to our -office at any time. Please contact
our office if you have any questions or require additional information.
Enclosure
cc: County Commissioners
Chad Flausniannht 'AssistaCounty unty Engineer
Lee'Kelly, Ir .terim County Coordina'tor
File
CADoc u ni o ii ts gild S e16i19S\vo01i73 8 7Wy Diali ll ii Is\Cost S liarijig Poli y Update 2013Mor&Cover. Lette r, Cos L Slur c.Pol i CY. Update. Ai ne. 20l 3-docx
Equofl Oppoitunity Mffly*tnative Action Employer
Cost Participation Policy Comparison
Comoarable Mlnne5toa Counlies ilurieZO13-Courity�Par-ticlioationConi ar,
P 15on
StOn dard CO Qjq t V CQQ S Vuc tio 0 in Citic S i vith P0 u 10 t On > 5000 (5 to to A id Cities) and Cities < .5Q()0 c7n d to vvn sh Fos vjh ich t Yoko I/VF 11 a ve ve a v co
I te rn _!� -5 t shot org N 5 YEAR PLANA R INITIATED BY CO UNM
wrigm (CLirrent 1993 Policy) NDIQ
->5,0-00 populat?on Sher[Yurne County Stearns Co tj my Arioka County
000 To wn s h Fp s >5,C6W pop. urban areas
<5,000 gra Are -as
,OM p op. u rba n areas <5,000 -urban Areas >5,0-00 Pop U13 tic rk
0
f
U
nAf ea
Cost
cop
on
, Fte rlw�"
R [a ht of Via y (R/w) 100 (Co u n ty de s,g n ed pcoj..); 100�S [County desigried jprol);
(0 ty des_ I g n e d prol-) 0'34 Urba n a ir e a
51 (0 art d.2 5 fig n u d jP r ci.) 03/a UrWn Are�s -50% - CSAH Routes
UP tO 100 �4 (6 Ve:� p ay f of R/%V Up to IMS
L
County Roads n a -E! d ed ro r s Ieevial ks, tralqs, etc.) for sic
lural De s 1 An G ra jir-ig Items
u ra - 100 va rn id nd;
Vr b 3 [1-- 0�YS Cc m C, A rens
(Ag g 0 as e, b,t i te ms, turfy
10 () 75 �
culveits, etc)
Iorben Ga�ir4 [tEr'rls
rern;�IWjner after recierar/state
4:1�
(At B a s e, bit Ite rn s, tu r -f,
VarUcipatfon Is deducted)
culiv-Er-ts, etc)
ir e rrt a pri'nZ_ a ft r= r Fe deral/state
C -o n -c r et -e Curb Gutter r4 e.v I
4f
Concrete Curb Cu Mer
enmf
2 C e m e F-4 t
NIS,
Curb and Gutter for F. !E! d; m ri s
i
Up to 1001/a
rn Con ore te hle dia r[ —
4
— Up to 1002.es
1100%,
Turn Lines - Le ft Rin h t, Center
tPaveme.-It surfadvgl
lsph�cr cm (P.3
U'.J ers)
"gypo 70 S pa,
P t(%I-ernent coSt)
Concrete 5i de - Ne -,,L; 1 05
re d 3. -Pi P 5
5"d ia 1 k R e p ak e m e n t 02 iun!ess relocation due to
gra- 'n 3)
5;ke -.,, a y Re p 1 a ce.-n e n t
P4 ia [ I b .3-x Support (rn e E- tir-n go
s-.,-fng-aw,ay 53fEty standards) 10
Lova I U ti I ti e
10 0 ,2rs
UP to Y00
0
Up to 100��
up to
CSAH R uIC-3 - County pa -es w,thfn CSAH &_jUte!S _ C04Unt-y pa�_S w; t Wn
10.3 curbi.-Frie; CovntyR.oad -County Curb I In !:-0 U n ty R o a d 5 - C:0 U n ty
Pa 5 center 24', Orty pays pars renter 24', City p a YS
010'erYffi"n-7 outsTde of that eVeryth 'nor O.0 t 5 Tde -0 f that
n
43-
50%
Pr a cLrn crit t 10{ - Re IdCeMEnt
sci-A - t%,Qvr New
P,, -p I j3 c e M,;--
Repr2CeMEM
0 0 311;,
U, a
.P to _1002",
I 00M
I
n
te
r
secting Streets
treets
t`obI';zat!on, Traffic
Vontrol
n
trol Pf o -r e od h ibco risAtr
u cotiv n 9 Fra
re Pf o-ra teOod bv;i ckU
risAtructon share
Stoi rn Srwer rnan o' -es,
grates, rAStln5) -U(bused on Sate -d Letter of Based nsateN Lett orf
i cctruu'n0Fve CFLtrbt tl
OF
R I - I n nfX. rm L -h m - I -
- I Tra ffid c 51-n a! s
8 ridg c:.s
T TfniFaff 1c Signa not %,�a:rranted
R ou id3 bo Lup ts
Street UghtFng - Utbrn
kr
Ur a n 05� Corte, Aprons
u ra - 100 va rn id nd;
Vr b 3 [1-- 0�YS Cc m C, A rens
0 - riev.1
100 - Replacement
0 3 -So
0M, n I -e s s f e,10 ca t loo du e to
re m al ri`n-3, a f te r Fede f a f/S ta te
Em
rern;�IWjner after recierar/state
4:1�
55Y.2 of Local Share (amount
VarUcipatfon Is deducted)
Psi ticip-ation Is deductedj; job},
ir e rrt a pri'nZ_ a ft r= r Fe deral/state
100Y
T a To -.vns W'p!�
P--artf0pation Is dedur-t-ed)
enmf
I
n
te
r
secting Streets
treets
t`obI';zat!on, Traffic
Vontrol
n
trol Pf o -r e od h ibco risAtr
u cotiv n 9 Fra
re Pf o-ra teOod bv;i ckU
risAtructon share
Stoi rn Srwer rnan o' -es,
grates, rAStln5) -U(bused on Sate -d Letter of Based nsateN Lett orf
i cctruu'n0Fve CFLtrbt tl
OF
R I - I n nfX. rm L -h m - I -
- I Tra ffid c 51-n a! s
8 ridg c:.s
T TfniFaff 1c Signa not %,�a:rranted
R ou id3 bo Lup ts
Street UghtFng - Utbrn
kr
Ur a n 05� Corte, Aprons
u ra - 100 va rn id nd;
Vr b 3 [1-- 0�YS Cc m C, A rens
0 - riev.1
100 - Replacement
50% of tocal Share (amount
50 � of Lecn I 5h ? re (a -mo U n t
re m al ri`n-3, a f te r Fede f a f/S ta te
Em
rern;�IWjner after recierar/state
4:1�
55Y.2 of Local Share (amount
VarUcipatfon Is deducted)
Psi ticip-ation Is deductedj; job},
ir e rrt a pri'nZ_ a ft r= r Fe deral/state
T a To -.vns W'p!�
P--artf0pation Is dedur-t-ed)
vii
Up to 100�-,j
(Per Rreet Lfgstir.,g Po[!cy)
Un to
U
.P tom--
Ve r Street Ug htpir.g Policy)
11- JL._ d- d5 + J1
0 3 S
10 OM
100 f?
5 -D'S of Local _Shane (amou nt
,0 .
rem a-. nn- after Fcderal/,State
.!h
vartl-r-rpation is deducted)
0
031
ri ncs 1 0-4
Q.2 .e
r — I — Ms
:j
0% 1 Wr
0%
64
Based on .State Aid Le t be r of Ba gssed on State AN Letter of
contei b u tin f I cie..-I cc ri
cc ritr 1- b ut.'riz fl ovp
CP
used on Legs Of intersect on B used on Legs of intersection
A ml orl eL F t-
13 a s c- cP -on tees -o f i rit e r s e ctrorp
Up to 100:,:4 U,
E! a v3 d c n State Aki Letter (or Based on 51
cnitribut;rig How fm County Ro3.js)
43 con tiri but;nar fly
I-OW6, Fn Hrid (6tfc-s pay 10G3' c -f in k;nd-
.0 P,,TT a d it- 5) U
112 tost of County Legs of
IFJ trE rs e ctton
•
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-51
RESOLUTION RESPONDING TO REQUEST FOR INPUT FROM
OTSEGO REGARDING PROPOSED UPDATE TO WRIGHT COUNTY
COST SHARING POLICY AND RECOMMENDING CHANGES TO THE
COST SHARING POLICY
WHEREAS, The Wright County Board of Commissioners (Board) has initiated
review and update of the County's Cost Sharing Policy (Policy) and the Boatd and
County Engineer have requested input from affected local units of government on
the Policy; and,
WHEREAS, the Policy establishes formulas for the construction and maintenance
of County roadway in-1provements and facilities requiring financial pat-ticipation
by the cities and townships for said improvements and facilities with regional
benefit; and,
WHEREAS, the Policy currently establishes two separate cost sharing formulas,
one for cities five thousand and less in population and townships and another for
cities over five thousand in population creating inequity in County funding for
transportation improveinents-- and,
5
WHEREAS, the majority of the County's population resides within cities of over
five thousand in population and those cities provide a inaj ority of the County's
inarket value and tax revenue thus the County has an. obligation to provide
sei-vices and facilities in an equitable and fair manner to these residents consistent
with the services and facilities provided to residents in cities under five thousand
in population and townships; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Otsego hereby requests revisions to the Policy to
eliminate the current funding disparity and create consistency, fairness, and
equitable application of the Policy between the two existing separate formulas by
creating one funding formula that is applicable to all local jurisdictions within the
County; and,
WHEREAS, tinder current Wright County Cost Sharing Policy the City bore all
costs for upgrade of the intersection of CSAH 39 and CSAI-1 42, including
installation of traffic control signals within Otsego which facilitated commercial
development in the area benefitting the County as well as the City; and,
WHEREAS, under current Wright County Cost Sharing Policy the City bore all
costs for upgrade of CSAH 42, CSAH 39, and 85"' Street within Otsego which
facilitated commercial development in the area benefitting the County as well as
the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Otsego contributed all local share costs (including
Wright County's share) for upgrading Trunk Highway 10 1 benefitting the County
as well as the City; and,
WHEREAS, curb and gutter, center median, retaining walls and storm sewer are
all methods to reduce right-of-way needs (and land acquisition costs) for roadway
improvements therefore the County should participate in the cost of to a greater
extent than established by the current Policy -5 and,
WHEREAS, the existing Policy needs to change to reflect the benefit that urban
development has to the entire County; and,
WHEREAS, the changes suggested by the City of Otsego would facilitate
development within Cities over five thousand and thus would benefit all residents
of the County.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota as follows;
1. The City of Otsego requests that the Wright County Board consider and
adopt the changes to the Wright County Cost Sharing Policy as set forth in
the attached Exhibit A.
2. All future Federal and State funding for projects covered by the Policy be
allocated to the benefit of both the County and the participating city or
township by subtracting such funding from the total project cost prior to
allocating the cost between the County and local juri diction.
ADOPTED this 23th day of September, 2013 by the City Council of Otsego.
2
MOTION TO ADOPT the Resolution by Council Member.
and seconded by Council Member
IN FAV4OR.
OPPOSED:
CITY OF OTSGO
Jessica Stockamp, Mayor
Taini Loff, City Clerk
Policy Change
Reauested?
Policy Funding Item
Yes
Right of Way
Yes
Rural Design Grading Items
No
Urban Design Grading Items
Yes
Concrete Curb Gutter - New
Yes
Concrete Curb Gutter - Replacement
Yes
Curb and Gutter for Medians
Yes
Plain Concrete Median
Yes
Shoulders
No
Turn Lanes - L, R., C (pavement surfacing)
Yes
Parking Lanes (paved shoulders)
Yes
Concrete Sidewalk- New
No
Pedestrian Ramps - New
Yes
Sidewalk Replacement
Yes
Sidewalk Replacement Due to County Damage
New
Bikeway
Yes
Bikeway Replacement
Yes
Regional Tralils. (trails included in Wright County Trail Plan)
New
Mailbox Support (meeting swing away standard)
No
Local Utilities
No
Adopt Local ROW Policy for Utility Location
New
Intersecting Streets
No
Mobilization, Traffic Control
Yes
Storm Sewer (manholes, grates, castings)
No
Driveway5 Yes
Traffic Signals
Yes
Traffic Signal Maintenance
New
Traffic Signal EVP (emergency vehicle preemption)
New
Bfidges
N0
Traffic Signals not Warranted
N0
Roundabouts
Yes
Street Lighting Urban
Yes
Street Lighting Rural
Yes
Retaining Walls
Yes
Retaining Walls in lieu of R/W acquisition
Yes
Federal Funding New
Pedestrian Crossing Striping New
Signage New
Key.
No Change Requested
L Inequity between funding categories
Resolutlon 2013-51
Exhibit A
Existinp Poli
T%-jp. and Cities under 5,000 Jurisdictions over 5,000
Recommended Policy for All
Wright Cou nty J u risd ictions
up to 100%
800/0
100%
0
0
50%
0
0
100%
up to 100%
up to 100%
100%
up to 1001/a
up to 100%
100%
up to 100-0/0
8 W/O
10070
100%
Up to 70"/o pavement cost
1007a
0
0
10070
0 unless relocation due to grading
0 unless relocation due to grading
1001
N/A
N/A
100%
0
0
10070
0
0
1003/0
N/A
N/A
100%
N/A N/A
Pro -rated by construction share Pro -rated by construction share
Rural 100% in kind, Urban Wlo Conc. Aprons Rural 1000% in kind, Urban 0% Conc. Aprons
501/10 Local Share (amount remaining after 5WIo of Local Share (amount remaining after
Federal/State participation is deducted) Federal/State participation is deducted)
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
Up to 100% (per street lighting policy)
Up to 50o (per street lighting PD1iCV)
Up to 50° Cities; Up to 100r% Townships
Up to 100% (per street lighting policy)
Up to 60% (PET street lighting policy)
Lip to 50r/a
all credited to County share of cost
otes:
leview Street Lighting Polis+ for consistency with reconi me n, d ed Cost Sharing Pol1Cy Changes
tight of Way costs addressed in body of Resolution
Adopt jurisdiction poli cV
By leg per jurisdiction
100% In kind
By leg per jurisdiction
By leg per jurisdiction
By leg per jurisdiction
By leg per jurisdiction
100%
100%
100%
100%
Federal funding applied to
entire project before
determining cost share
between County and local
jurisdiction
100%
100%