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