Loading...
11-14-95 PRJ'aT O� vp 01�WRIGHT COUNTY Z DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS Wright County Public Works Building fit M Route No. 1 - Box 97-B Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 000 47 1�O Jct. T.H. 25 and C.R. 138 � ,dy Telephone (612) 682.7383 pass TO: City Administrators/Clerks /0 FROM: Wayne Fingalson, County Engineer DATE: March 30, 1993 SUBJECT: Revised Funding Policy for Highway Construction Projects J __� WAYNE A. FLNGAL90r Highway Engin«, 682.7388 DAVID K. MONTEBELL A+aiatant Highway Ens 6827387 RICHARD E. MARQUE Right of Way Agvn 6827386 The Wright County Board of Commissioners, at their 3/23/93 meeting, voted to modify the Cost Sharing Policy for major highway construction projects in Wright County. Ayou may recall, this subject was reviewed thoroughly a few years ago by a Construction FundingPolicy Task Force comprised of representatives from cities (both above and below 5,000 population), townships and Wright County. I am enclosing --a copy of .the_ new policy, as adopted by the County Board. The two main changes in the said policy can be found in the new Note lA and in a revised Not 7 which modifies the County participation for preliminary and construction engineering. Please direct any questions you have regarding this policy to el -her myself or Dave ,-fontei;c1l , Assistant County Engineer. Enclosures pc: County Commissioners R. Norman D. Montebello js Equal Opper!uni:y / A((irmclice Action Employer COST SHARING POLICY FOR MAJOR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTED ON COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAYS AND COUNTY ROADS IN WRIGHT COUNTY County participation in County State Aid Highway projects and County Road projects in Townships and with, City limits for both Cities under 5,000 population and over 5,000 population shall be in accordance with the followin; The County will participate in road reconstruction projects (excluding bridge replacements and true highway turnback proje=) according to the priorities established by the County Board of Commissioner. Participation shall be in accordance with the following cost sharing percentages as follows:, BASE Notes TYPE OF PROJECT COUN'T'Y PARTICIPATION (*) fSee below) Rural Design 10090 1. Urban Design up to 1009 1A (*) The % participation includes but is not limited to grading items, aggregate base, bituminous item (for travel lanes), turf establishment items, and culverts. It does not include specialty items that are liste below. These items will be considered separately at the following percentages. Not( - SPECIALTY ITEM COUNTY PARTICIPATION (See below) Curb and Gutter 0170 Mobilization and Traffic Control Pro -rated based on County's share versus total contract cost Pourbacks (driveway concrete 0% required due to entrances) Parking Lanes (paved shoulders) up to 70% 2. Storm Sewer, Manholes, Grates, Based on the State Aid formula as Castings defined in the State Aid Manual No. 5-892-600-.645 which uses the ratio of contributing flows. Raised Concrete Medians up to 1009 Retaining Walls up to 509 for Cities up to 1009 for Townships Street Lighting 0% permanent 5017a temporary Sidewalk (new and replacement) Oa 4. Relocation or Adjustment of Existing Municipal Utilities Reconstruction of Existing or New iNfunicipal Utilities On -Street Bikeway (paved shoulders -rural section) Off -Street Bikepath (separated facility from roadway) Traffic Signal Systems 0% 5. 0 ?01 5. up to 709 6 Oo See attached Traffic Signal Policy Preliminary and Construction Graduated Fee 7 Engineering ! J Right -of -Way up to 100% for County designed g, projects 09 for City designed projects Notes i. Rural Design Li a road design which consists of travel lanes, shoulders and :: ditch section to handle surfac: runoff. An Urban Design is a road design which consists of travel lanes, paved shoulders, and curb/gutter u handle surface runoff (drainage). The County Engineer will determine if an urban section on. a rural section should be used based on drainage existing and future development of area, current driving environ-rnent, and othor physical and economic- factors Projects ;which have curb and gutter on one side of road and a rural section on the other si0, shall be looked a on a case by case basis with regard to funding. Percent participation will be based on availability of funds and demand or need for projects. IA. Cities over 5,000 population are not eligible for funds from the County Municipal State Aid Construction Accoun (which is set up for cities less than 5,000 population). Therefore, projects within cities over 5,000 must be funded by the County, typically, with Regular State Aid Construction dollars. This funding source is not generally adequate to meet the current needs. Therefore the County wi11 only participate in these projects (ir Cities over 5,000 population) to a maximum base of 80% not including specialty items as designated. 2. Percent participation applies to bituminous surfacing. Percent participation may vary depending on width parking lanes. 3. Cost sharing for the installation of street lights within an improvement project shall be limited to the initia; construction (including materials) or installation only. All maintenance and subsequent power usage will be the responsibility of the local government unit. Installation of lights will be limited to areas such as intersections, transition areas, raised median locations, etc. If the light is not properly maintained the County reserves the right to remove the light. The light may not be removed by the local unit of government without prior writter approval from the County Engineer. 4. If an existing, adequate sidewalk has to be relocated it may be eligible for funding under the state aid o "nom The County would then participate as indicated under the urban design. 5. Relocation or adjustment of utilities which are currently on County Right -of -Way will be done at the expense of the city or utility company. Relocations of utilities that are on private easement may be eligible for relocatior. compensation. These situations may require special attention, written agreements etc. Contact the Office of the County Engineer if questions occur. 6. The paved shoulders must have logical termini for start and termination of path. 7. The maximum allowed for engineering services will be based on the size and complexity of the project. The following maximum percentage amounts will be paid to the cities and townships who have a plan approved by all required agencies and an agreement with the County for which payment will be based on final total contract amount upon completion and acceptance of the project. The final reimbursement shall be computed using the appropriate % below times the County's portion only of the contract costs. t From S 0 thru S 50,000 up to 189 of Contract Amount Over 10,000 thru 100,000 up to 1695 of Contract Amount Over 100,000 thru 250,000 up to 13 % of Contract Amount Over 250,000 thru 500,000 up to 1195 of Contract Amount Over 500,000 thru Indefinite up to 1095 of Contract Amount Contributions to cover engineering costs shall be based on the above rates and shall cover all Preliminary and Construction engineering costs. Preliminary engineering includes feasibility studies, plan and speci} -ton development and hearings. Construction engiLeering includes inspection` testing, engineering supervisi The County will charge for overhead and unallocated expenses on work performed by the County unless an agreement specifically prohibits charging for this work. 8. Right -of -Way acquisition shall follow appropriate state guidelines and shall include the purchase of any permanent right -of --way and con; ructica easements as necessary for to completion of the project.. If right-of-way is obnined by the local unit of governmeri: it will be required to submit a letter to tha County Engineer indicating that all required rights-of-way have been acquired and the necessary copies of the right-of-way plat or easement documents recorded. County Designed Project - Project which is prioritized, programmed, engineered, and reviewed by public using County employees or a consultant whom is directly under contract with the County. City Designed Project - Project which is prioritized and programmed by County and City but is engineered by the City and reviewed by public using City staff or a consultant that is directly responsible or under contract with the City. Local units of government will be expected to contribute according to this policy. The basic premise here is that the county pay costs peculiar to county needs and municipalities pay costs peculiar to municipal or local needs. If conditions or situations arise that would make the financial commitment unfair or unreasonable the County Engineer will present possible cost sharing alternatives to the County Board for their consideration. Prior to any construction contract award, a formal turiding agreement will be prepared and approved by b County and the affected governmental agency. Datt `larch 23 1993 Motion by Commissioner Jude BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA Resolution No. _ 91-11 Seconded by Commissioner Russek WHEREAS, an established funding policy for construction projects on County State Aid Highways and County Roads in Wright County provides for consistency and allows for better planning for both Wright County and other local units of government involved in the improvement project, AND WHEREAS, a Construction Funding Policy Task Force comprised of representatives from Cities (both above and below 5,000 population), Townships, and Wright County reviewed funding options and recommended a policy in 1990, AND WHEREAS, the Wright County Board has previously reviewed and adopted a modified version of said policy AND WHEREAS, an established cost sharing policy provides for: 1. Equitable distribution of costs associated with the improvement to those that benefit 2. Ability of local units of government to provide input to improvement projects and to commit them, financially to some of the decisions that are made. i 3. Ability of County to distribute its improvement funds to more projects in more communities. AIND WHEREAS, the County Board has determined that the present policy needs some modifications, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED: 1. 3 That the attached policy is hereby adopted. That the attached policy supersedes the municipal funding policy P.dopted by the W-ght County Board on May 15, 1990. That the policy be implemented on all future projects and on all current projects in which a funding agreement has not yet been approved by Wright County. YES JUDE x SAWATZKE RUSSEK R ROSE x MATTSON x STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss. County of Wright ) NO JUDE SAWATZKE x RUSSEK ROSE MATTSON I, Richard W. Norman, duly appointed, qualified, and acting Clerk to the County Board for the County of Wright, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution or motion with the original minutes of the proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners, Wright County, Minnesota, at their session held on the 23rd day of March , 19 93 , now on file in my office, and have found the same to be true and correct copy thereof. Witness my hand and official sea] at Buffalo, Minnesota, this 23rd day of March , 19 93 �'Z��G' v` Cots ty Coordinator LZ � Dayton • Elk River • Hassan • ISD 728 . Livonia . Otsego • Rogers • Zimmerman 1230 School Street NW • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 241-3523 • FAX (612) 241-3521 BOARD 11/14/95 To: Otsego Park and Recreation Commission Fr: Jeff Asfahl - Community Recreation Board Re: General Information / Update Hayride: - generated $210 from registration ( approx. 105 participants ) (25 families) - Great Event! Alot of hard work by several commissioners - treats were provided by Lions - Only one tractor stuck (ha- ha) could have been worse - Who was that rookie driver anyway? Skating Rink Warming House Hours: Target opening date is Saturday December 16th. Final date of Sunday February 18th. Community Recreation will staff and supervise the warming house I suggest that you set this years warming house hours as: Weekends and non -school days 1-9 pm. and Mon- Thur 5- 8:00 pm, Fridays 5 - 9 pm. Last years hours were: Mon - Fri. 5-9 & Weekends and Non -school days 1-9. Which do you prefer? What is the closing policy for staff ? Scavenger Hunt: - Was held, Oct 21 - 1-2:30 Approx. 25 in attendance, weather was poor Winter Fest'96 - Was budgeted for '96 with anticipated Revenue of $50 and Expenditures of $150. Recommendation: That this event again be organized with the following opportunities: Skating, sledding, Bonfire, Chili, Modified winter golf and frisbee golf. The Park Commission should discuss and set a date. A date should be set at your Nov. Meeting as the Recreation Brochure goes to print on Dec. 6th. /s January 13, 1996 the planned date? What time ? last year it was 10-3 MEMORANDUM TO: Parks Commission City of Otsego FROM: Merland Otto DATE: November 13, 1995 RE: ISTEA Grant I met with Virgil Hawkins, Assistant County Engineer, and Wayne Fingalson, County Engineer, on November 9, 1995 to explore possible interest and County participation in the FY96 or FY 98 ISTEA Projects. As YOU recall, we discussed the possibility of providing off-road bike and ;pedestrian paths along CSAH's 39 and 42. The attached excerpt from the County's Revised Funding Policy indicates that the County's policy is not to ;participate on these projects. The likelihood of changing this is not good since the policy was reviewed and revised in 1993. Other Cities (Delano and Monticello) also have funded their trails @ 1-0036. P0tically it wou!d be unlikely that Otsego could receive funding. We, thus, discussed other options. If you recall, CSAH 19 is ultimately planned to be part of the City's bikeway system. The County could participate in paving bike lanes along CSAH 19 and the County Engineer has indicated he would be supportive of such a project. He would bring this up for discussion at their November 28, 1995 road and bridge committee meeting if we wished to pursue. This, however, would most probably be under the FY98 Program. We briefly discussed cost sharing and indicated that a 50% cost share would be desired for both engineering and construction. If additional County requirements such as thicker pavement section or wider paved shoulder were required, we would expect the County to fund this on their own, thus their percentage may be higher than 50%. They are limited by policy to no more than 70% for this type of project. If the City is interested in pursuing this, we would need to develop a cost estimate for this project so that Wright County would have it prior to their November 28, 1995 Parks Commission Page 2 November 13, 1995 meeting. In very rough terms, the County's share for construction and engineering would be in the area of $31,000 ± . ACTION REQUIRED: The Parks Commission should consider whether this is a possible desired course of action. If so, we need to provide a brief description and probable cost of the project to the County. jig Enclosure OT 05.mem