cityof- re ` ng®

City Of"-

RE " ` NG® CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

Council Meeting Date: January 13, 2014

To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members

From: Ron Rosenthal, Engineering Director

Agenda Item: 9D — Federal Funding Application for Spring Creek Road/TH 61 IntersectionRealignment

ACTION REQUESTED:

Adopt Resolution No. 6633 authorizing staff to apply for federal funding to realign theintersections of TH 61 /Spring Creek Road & Avenue /South & North Service Drives /CarolLane in 2018 as shown on the attached Final Geometric Layout Sheet.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution No. 6633

Project solicitation letter from MnDOT dated 12/02/2013.

MnDOT District 6 ATP (Area Transportation Partnership) Small Urban & Rural

Boundaries illustration.

Projected Federal Funding Distribution for MAP21 in 2018 for District 6. ATP -6 STIP Application Form for Fiscal Year 2018 Project.

Capital Improvement Plan ( CIP) project detail sheet for the proposed Spring CreekRoad/TH 61 Realignment Project.

Final Geometric Layout Sheet from the 2008 Intersection Alignment Study's Final Report.

BACKGROUND:

The MnDOT District 6 office annually solicits projects from Cities and Counties within the districtfor federal funded projects to incorporate into the State Transportation Improvement Program

STIP). The federal funding for these projects is capped at 80% of construction costs. All othercosts ( remaining 20% of construction costs, environmental review, design, staking, testing, contract administration, right -of -way acquisition, contract administration, etc.) must be funded byother means (State Aid, General Fund, Assessments, Enterprise Funds, Bonding, etc.). Thedeadline for project application submittal is February 1, 2014. All of the project submittals withinMnDOT District 6 will be graded by the other State Aid city and county engineers within thedistrict on a point system outlined in the attached instructions based on such things as how the

project benefits the regional transportation network, traffic volumes affected, mobility, eliminationof roadway deficiencies, enhance /improve safety, promotion of multiple modes of transportation, public participation, etc. There is approximately $ 3, 100, 000 of federal funds annually disbursedfor District 6 Cities ( Small Urban funds).

1

The proposed Spring Creek Road/ TH 61 realignment project has been discussed and in theCity's CIP since the realignment study was completed in 2008. MnDOT has $ 500,000 in theirCIP for a portion of the improvements on this project, including work within TH 61 right -of -wayand some additional costs out of their right -of -way. Staff had discussed this project with Councilat the 2013 annual Council workshop last February, and Council consensus was to apply for thiscurrent round of federal funding for project construction in 2018, and if the application issuccessful, use assessment funds to begin right -of -way acquisition in 2014.

This federal funding source is the same source of funding approved and being used for WestAvenue and Levee Road reconstruction projects in 2014 & 2015.

DISCUSSION:

Staff would like to discuss the proposed application for federal funding with Council and havethe attached resolution adopted prior to working on the application. Staff has had recentconversations with several property owners affected by the project and the Goodhue CountyEngineer. These conversations went as follows:

Todd Siewert (Siewert's Garage) — Todd is opposed to the project and would rather leave

the intersections and highway accesses as they currently exist. He feels the new road alignmentthrough their property will restrict his business plans for future growth, it will affect his access, and it separates his property into two smaller parcels.

John Wooden ( River Valley Sports) — John wooden is opposed to the project and would

rather leave the intersections and highway accesses as they currently exist. He realizes thatMnDOT could eliminate the median cross -over at any time if vehicle accidents occur in the area, but he feels the proposed signalized intersection is too far away from his business. He feels hewould lose business with the proposed access moving further away.

Tim Amdahl ( Red Wing Ford Dealership) — Tim is completely in favor of the proposedproject because of his close access onto TH 61. He feels it would be a much needed safetyimprovement.

Greg Isakson (Goodhue County Engineer) — Greg is in favor of the project. He willdiscuss working the County portion of funding for the proposed County Road 53 improvementsinto the County' s CIP with the County Board if the federal funding is approved.

The one thing that concerns staff is that the traffic flow in this area is extremely dysfunctionaland MnDOT is able to close off median crossings and individual drive accesses without makingthe proposed improvements. In order for this area to expand commercially and safely supportfurther expansion of traffic volumes, the service drives and Carol Lane will need access to acontrolled intersection on TH 61.

FUNDING SOURCE(S):

No funding is required to apply for these funds. Engineering staff time is involved.

ALTERNATIVES:

1) Adopt Resolution No. 6633, authorizing staff to apply for federal funding ( FY 2018) forintersection realignment of the Spring Creek Road & TH 61 intersection as shown on theattached geometric layout.

2) Defeat Resolution No. 6633, Staff would need direction on how to proceed

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends Alternative 1).

70" m

Resolution No. 6633

Federal Transportation Project Grant

Spring Creek Road & TH 61 Intersection Realignment Project

WHEREAS, transportation projects receive federal funding from the Federal TransportationAct ( MAP 21), which is administered through the Minnesota Department of TransportationMnDOT), and

WHEREAS, MnDOT is seeking candidate applications for MAP 21 projects to include in theState Transportation Improvement Program for fiscal year 2018.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that an application be submitted for the SpringCreek Road & TH 61 Intersection Realignment project as determined in the Final Report of the

2008 Intersection Realignment Study, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Engineer is authorized to act on the City'sbehalf in filing and administering this application including a commitment to secure and guaranteethe local share of the project costs including the construction costs, all of the design and inspectioncosts, and the necessary right -of -way costs.

Adopted this 13th day of January, 2014.

ATTEST:

Kathy Seymour Johnson, MCMCCity Clerk

seal)

Presented to the Mayor at

Approved this day of

Lisa Pritchard Bayley, Council President

p. m. on this day of

2014.

2014.

Daniel D. Bender, Mayor

HNEBOlMinnesota Department of Transportation

District 6, Rochester /Owatonna Office: 507 - 286 -7502

OF TP2900 481^ Street NW Fax: 507- 285 -7355Rochester, MN 55901 -5848 greg. paulson @state.gn.us

December 2, 2013

See List of Addressees

RE: Solicitation and Prioritization for Fiscal Year 2018

Road, Bridge and Transit Capital Projects

Dear Recipient:

The Southeastern Minnesota Area Transportation Partnership (ATP -6) is soliciting road, bridge andtransit capital projects to expand and upgrade the present State Transportation ImprovementProgram (STIP). We will be soliciting projects for the final year of the upcoming STIP toincorporate into our Area Transportation Improvement Program (ATIP). Your submittals should be

for Fiscal Year 2018. If you are submitting more than one project, they must be numericallyprioritized within your jurisdiction. If you are located within an area covered by a MetropolitanPlanning Organization (MPO), projects should also be submitted to the MPO so that the MPO canrank applications for its TIP. All projects will then be reviewed and ranked by the ATP -6. Aprioritized ATIP will be submitted for consideration and inclusion in the STIP. A STIP Application

Form for your use in submitting and prioritizing projects may be found at the District 6 ATP Websitehttp: / /www. dot. state. mn .us /d6 /atp /sol!citations. htm1. The questions addressed in the District 6

City and County project solicitation criteria ( pages 6, 7, and 8 of the STIP Application Form) must

be answered for each project. In addition to the STIP Application Form, we are asking that youinclude a one page map showing the termini of your project with each submittal. Unsuccessfulprojects from last year's solicitation must be resubmitted at this time for consideration inF.Y. 2018.

Off - System Bridges and Highway /Railroad Grade Crossings will be solicited statewide by theirrespective offices. Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) projects will be solicited separatelyby the ATP -6. If you have a concern about any of these project types, please contact MarkSchoenfelder at ( 507) 286 -7552.

Projects already in the ATIP for FY 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 should be reviewed for slippage or

cost changes. Current cost estimates and any changes in schedule or scope should be reported toFausto Cabral by February 1, 2014.

An Equal Opportunity Employer

W

I_

L3 S

December 2, 2013

Page 2

Please use the STIP Application Form found at the website and forward your candidate projects ,(1

electronic copy of each) via the State Aid email gateway D6. StateAid(@state. mn. us by February 1, 2014.

For questions, contact Fausto Cabral at (507) 286 -7620 or Mark Schoenfelder at (507) 286 -7552.

Sincerely,

Greg Paul onAssistant District Engineer — Program DeliveryATP -6 Chair

Website Postings: STIP Application Form - 2018

Annual Milestone Report - 2018

Locally Approved City and County Projects — 2017ATP 6 Surface Transportation Program — Small Urban and Rural BoundariesProjected Federal Target Breakdown for F.Y. 2018

cc: Laurie Nagle

File

Addressees:

Bill Anderson, Lake CityDavid Strauss, StewartvilleNeil Britton, Kasson

Anita Benson, Steele CountyBrian DeFrang, WinonaTim Murray, FaribaultSteven Lang, AustinTom Faella, La Crosse -La Crescent MPORichard Freese, Rochester

Ron Gregg, Fillmore CountyMike Hanson, Mower CountyGreg Isakson, Goodhue CountySteven Jahnke, Albert Lea

David Kramer, Winona CountyMarc Mogan, Prairie Island Indian CommunityKyle Skov, Owatonna

An Equal Opportunity Employer

8 0

Tony Knauer, Rochester TransitGuy Kohlnhofer, Dodge CountyTom Dankert, Austin

Dennis Luebbe, Rice CountySue Miller, Freeborn CountySusan Moe, FHWA

Greg Paulson, MnDOTFausto Cabral, MnDOT

Dietrich Flesch, Wabasha CountyKaye Bieniek, Olmsted CountyBrian Pogodzinski, Houston CountyPhil Wheeler, ROCOG

Mark Schoenfelder, Mn /DOTJoseph Stapf, Northfield

Ron Rosenthal, Red WingJean Meyer, MnDOT Transit

Bill Angerman, La Crescent andByron

11 A

3

Page 1 of 1

ATP - 6 Surface Transportation Program ( STP)

http: / /www. dot. state. mn. us /d6 /atp /pdfs /atp -6- surface - transportation - program - small- urban - rural- boundaries.jpg12/9/2013

ATP- 6 Federal Program Changes:

Off - System Bridgei( BROS) - These projects will be managed atastatewideEve! MnDOrStateAid

Officefor Local Transportation (SALT) will develop a statewideapproachtoselectingo%systembridge

Red WingbwnsJtationwshthe DisirKt Statead Engineers.

Elko

Enhancements ( TE) - Funding for enhancemert projects has beenreplacedwithanewTransportatlon

orthfield tg Ah2M1 IQS NOgmm( TAP) This program Kfunded asa set asidefromthe5TP. ATP-6fundinglevelis

It i Cannon Falls Lake City appmxkswteVS1.2Mfcr FV2o17. Eligible project types havechanged. ProjectElgibdityCriterwis

Lonsdale being developed for aFY 2016, FY 2037 and FY 2018 soPdtation inthespringof2013.

Du az w O nMsoGWdhue

@

NWaoazha

peg Safety Projects - Funding for roll safety projects will now comefromtheHghwaySafetyIt e(

S rand p lmprwementprogram( HSw) funding category. Projects will beprogrammedatastatewidelevel

aribayyanyrp g

2 rota

I Mar PP Zum

w

Kellogg

w a nFalls

r as

Pine Bland74 Minnelska

Plainview Small UrbanandRuralBoundariesMetlfortl West onto

n Oronoco Elgin Rollin toneSmall Urban Area (Population5,000to200,000)

oW a nn8Maoto 11

El

WinonaAvailableFunding $

4.1Million

CI remont yro ROCh star Goodview7a

Apurp u FEDERALELIGIBLEPROJECTS*

ra D e Center aEYote utita mock a City - RoadandBridge

ass nLewktan County - RoadandBridge

Sal Transit Capital

Elie ale BloomlHe eltl

mPCh es

ieDakota

Rural Area (POpulationlessthan5,000)

Sergeant sou ord Crascent

AvailableFunding $2.9Million

pChatfield

rocsa Hokah

Bro soave Fou taln Wn nto FEDERALELUGIBLEPROJECTS"

Dex Houston COUmy - ROadantlBntlgeap vew Grand Me Wykort

sz

k A stln

IElkton Sinn Valley

anesboro

Pre on

FUncUOnal Clessifice0onofMajorCollectororAbove

Ron CreeK o unng Grov N

toyse Adams Taol Harmony

LagarW

Le Roenjoin me I.,-`

EBLen n —mw.m.

LyleneRa.a..p

Urban Boundariesobtainedfrom2010U.S. CensusBureau

Map Created January 2013

http: / /www. dot. state. mn. us /d6 /atp /pdfs /atp -6- surface - transportation - program - small- urban - rural- boundaries.jpg 12/ 9/2013

ATP 6 - MAP21 Federal Distribution

Sub - Targets F.Y. 2018 Distribution

Transit Capital is Part of Small $ 0. 5

Urban Goal below in Balance to

Agencies section

Bridges - Statewide

Highway /Railroad Grade Crossneeds determined by OFCVO-

Railroad Administration Unit) -

Statewide Solicitation at 100%

Federal Funds

Federal Target $ 24. 3

Setasides - TAP and HSIP 4. 9

Balance to Agencies $ 19. 4

Balance to Agencies ($ 19. 4)

Transportation Alternative Program 0. 6

Local STP - Small Urban - also

includes Transit Capital of $ 0. 5

18. 5 %)

3. 60

TAP) - Statewide

2. 50

State STP ( 68. 5 %) 13. 30

rTransportation Alternative Program 0.4

TAP) - Small Urban

Transportation Alternative Program 0. 3

TAP) - Rural

WHSIP - Mn /DOT 1. 4

HSIP - LOCAL 2. 2

Federal Target $ 24. 3

Setasides - TAP and HSIP 4. 9

Balance to Agencies $ 19. 4

Balance to Agencies ($ 19. 4)

Agency Distribution

Local STP - Small Urban - also

includes Transit Capital of $ 0. 5

18. 5 %)

3. 60

Local STP - Rural ( 13 %) 2. 50

State STP ( 68. 5 %) 13. 30

amounts are in millions

ATP -6 STIP APPLICATION FORM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 Page 1

1. AGENCY (Requester or Agency who'll open bids): Contact:

Phone:

2. AGENCY PRIORITY (Numerical):

3. PROJECT #:

4. ROUTE SYSTEM (e.g. TWP 108 or CR 4): See page 4)

5. DESCRIPTION (Project Location):

6. TYPE OF WORK Code:

See page 3)

Description:

7. PROJECT LENGTH (Miles):

8. IS PROJECT PART OF AN APPROVED CIP? No Yes

CIP Year:

9. EARLIEST POSSIBLE DELIVERY DATE:

10. PROGRAM CATEGORY (See page 4):

11. INVESTMENT GOAL (See page 4):

12. FUNCTIONAL CLASS ( See page 4):

13. ADT (Average Daily Traffic)

A. Last Date Count:

Indicate Source B. Year of Count:

of Estimate) C. Design Year:

D. 20 Year Projected:

14. HCADT (Design Year Heavy Commercial ADT):

continued)

11/ 15/ 11

j:\stip project solicitation/ stip project solicitation 2015- 2018 \STIP Application - 2018.doc


15. CRASH HISTORY (3 -Year)

A. # Crashes w /one or more fatalities:

B. # Crashes w /personal injuries:

C. # Crashes w /property damage:

16. BRIDGE # (Existing Br. #): A. Detour Length

17. BRIDGE RATINGS: Geom Struct Suff

18. PSR (Present Serviceability Rating - if known): See page 5)

19. PQI (Pavement Quality Index - if known): See page 5)

20. CONSTRUCTION YEAR ESTIMATE:

Total of lines 21, 22, 23 and 24)

21. FEDERAL $:

22 T.H. (Trunk Highway) $:

23. STATE AID $:

24. OTHER $:

25. PROPOSED STP FUNDING CATEGORY: Small Urban / Rural

26. PROJECT MAP (Provide a project map with project termini — sheet size not to exceed 11" x 17 ")

27. REMARKS:

Use an additional sheet, if needed.

10


W0100 - GRADE, SURFACE & BRIDGE

W0200 - GRADE AND SURFACE

W0300 - GRADE AND BRIDGE

W0400 - GRADING

W0500- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

W0501 - BRIDGE APPROACHES

W0502 - BRIDGE REMOVAL

W0503- CULVERT REPLACEMENT

W0504- CULVERT EXTENSION

W0505 - NEW BRIDGE

W0506 - CULVERT REPAIR

W0507 - BOX CULVERT

W0508 - STEEL FOR NEW BRIDGE

W0509 - TEMPORARY BRIDGE

W0510- APPROACH PANEL

W0511 - APPROACH PANEL REPLACEMENT

W0512 - CULVERT

W0600 - SURFACING

W0601 - CONCRETE PAVEMENT

W0602 - UNBONDED CONCRETE OVERLAY

W0603- BONDED CONCRETE OVERLAY

W0604- CONCRETE PAVEMENT REHAB

W0605 - CONCRETE PVMNT SURF PLNG

W0606 - JOINT SEALING

W0607 - BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT

W0608- BITUMINOUS OVERLAY

W0609 - CRACK AND OVERLAY

W061 0 - MILL AND OVERLAY

W0611 - BITUMINOUS SEAL COAT

W0614 - EDGE DRAINS

W0615 - JOINT REPAIRS

W0616 - BITUMINIOUS CRACK & SEALING

W0617 - BITUMINOUS SAW & SEAL

W0618 - BITUMINOUS ROUT & SEAL

W0619 - BITUMINOUS RECLAMATION

W0620 - BIT. COLD INPLACE RECYCLING

W0621- CONCRETE OVERLAY

W0622 - CONCRETE WHITE TOPPING

W0623 - CRACK REPAIR

W0624 - MICRO SURFACING

W0625 - PAVEMENT PATCHING

W0626 - PAVEMENT SURFACE PLANING

W0627 - SEAL COAT

W0800 - BRIDGE REPAIR

W0801 - REDECK

W0802 - WIDEN AND REDECK

W0803 - PAINT BRIDGE

W0804 - RAILINGS

W0805 - BRIDGE REPAIR OTHER

W0806- BRIDGE OVERLAY

W0807- BRIDGE JOINTS

W0808- BRIDGE WIDEN

W0901 - SHOULDER WIDENING

EXPLANATION SHEET

Type of Work (Code and Description)

W0902 - PAVE SHOULDER

W0903 - PAVEMENT WIDENING

W0904 - TURN LANES

W0905 - GUARD RAIL

W0906 - TRAFFIC BARRIER

W 0907 - CHANNELIZATION

W0908- SHOULDER REPLACEMENT

W0909 - EROSION REPAIR

W0910 - BACKSLOPING

W0911 - BYPASS LANE

W0912 - CLEAR & GRUB

W0913 - EXCAVATION

W0914 - MEDIAN BARRIER

W0915 - IMPACT ATTENUATOR

W0916 - SLOPE FLATTENING

W0917 - STORM SEWER

W0918 - STORM SEWER REPAIR

W0919 - STORM SEWER REPLACEMENT

W0920 - RIP RAP

W1000 - TRAFFIC SIGNAL INST.

W1001 - TRAFFIC SIGNAL REVISION

W1002 - TRAFFIC MGMT. SYSTEM

W1003 - WARNING FLASHERS

W1004 - HOV RAMP METER BYPASS

W1005 - DEER REFLECTORS

W1006 - STRIPING

W1100- SIGNING

W1200 - LIGHTING

W1300- LANDSCAPING

W1301 - SALVAGE YD. SCREENING

W1302 - FENCING

W1303 - LANDSCAPE PARTNERSHIP

W1304 - LIVING SNOW FENCE

W1400 - NOISE ABATEMENT

W1500- BUILDINGS

W1502 - REST AREA

W1503 - WEIGH STATION

W1504 - BUILDING REMOVAL

W1700 - ABANDONED R.R & R/ W ALIGN.

W1800 - R.R. X -ING IMPROVEMENTS

W1900 - R/ W MONUMENTATION & MAP

W2000 - RAILROAD SURFACING

W2100 - RAILROAD SIGNALS

W2200 - RAILROAD SURF /SIGNALS

W2500- COOP. CONST. AGREEMENT

W2501 - DETOUR AGREEMENT

W2502- RAILROAD AGREEMENT

W2503- RESEARCH AGREEMENT

W2504 - UTILITY AGREEMENT

W3000 - ROAD REPAIR

W4000- PURCHASE BUS

W4100- OPERATE BUS

W4200 - BUS GRANT

W4300 - BUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

W5000- RIGHT OF WAY

W51 00 - ACQUIRING ACCESS CONTROL

W5500- JURISDICTIONAL REASSIGNMENT

W6000 - SUPP. AGREE. & COST OVERRUNS

W7000 - PED. /BIKE IMPROVEMENT

W7100- ENHANCEMENT

W7200 - PEDESTRIAN BIKE TRAIL

W7300 - PEDESTRIAN BIKE BRIDGE

W7400 - DNR RECREATIONAL TRAILS

W7500 - HISTORIC PRESERVATION

W8000 - PLANNING


EXPLANATION SHEET

Program Categories

AM - Municipal Agreement

B3 - FTA Capital Program - Section 5309

B9 - FTA Urbanized Area Formula - Section 5307

BI - Bridge Improvement

BR - Bridge Replacement

BT - Bike Trail

EN - Enhancement

IR - Indian Reservation Roads

JY - Junk Yard Screening

MC - Major Construction

NA - Not Applicable

NB - FTA Elderly and Persons with Disabilities - Section 5310

NO - Noise Walls

OB - FTA Non - urbanized Areas - Section 5311

PL— Planning

RB - Rest Area/Beautification

RC - Reconstruction

RD - Recondition

RL - Transportation Revolving Loan Fund

RS - Resurfacing

RW - Right of Way Acquisition

RX - Road Repair

SA - Supplemental Agreement/ Cost Overruns

SC- Safety Capacity

SH - Safety High Hazard

SR - Safety Railroads

TM - Transportation Management

TR - Transit (STP)

Route Systems Investment Goals

BB Transit (buses) Priori Goal

CITY City Project 1 Preservation

CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 2 Management & Operations

CR County Road 3 Replacement

CSAH County State Aid Highway 4 Expansion

DA Disability ActEN Enhancement (not assigned to a specific road)

FH Forest Highway District 6 MPO' s

I Interstate Highway 5 LaCrosse- LaCrescent

IRR Indian Reservation Roads & Bridges 6 Rochester - Olmsted

ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems

MSAS Municipal State Aid Street

MON Municipal Street

PED/BIKE Pedestrian or Bike Path/ Jrail (not assigned to a specific road) Functional ClassPL Planning I Federal Aid Interstate

RR Railroad PA Principal Arterial

TWN Township Road MA Minor Arterial

TH Trunk Highway MC Major Collector

TH 999 State project not associated with a road ( not an Enhancement) C Minor Collector

LOCAL 999 Local project not associated with a road ( not an Enhancement) L Local

9DNA Not Applicable

ATP -6 STIP APPLICATION FORM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018

EXPLANATION SHEET

ROADWAY RATINGS

Page 5

Pavement Pavement

Sufficiency QualityRating Index

PSR P () l)

Range: 0- 5. 0 0 - 4. 5

Good: 3. 3+ 3. 3+

Fair: 2.9 - 3. 3 2.9 - 3. 3

Poor: 2. 8 - 0 2. 8 - 0

Page 5


District 6

County Project Selection Criteria

1. Discuss the project' s merits /benefits and intended effect upon the regional transportation

network. (20 points)

2. Describe how the project will improve the mobility of people and goods. ( 20 points)

3. Describe how the project eliminates structural, geometric and functional deficiencies. (20

points)

4. How does your project enhance or improve safety? Explain (15 points)

Describe the impact your project will have on helping Minnesotans travel safer. Examples whichaccomplish this goal include:

5. Explain how the project contributes to the areas long -range transportation plan. (10 points)

6. How does your project promote more than one mode of travel? Explain. ( 10 points)

7. Describe what public participation has taken place with this project. (5 points)

8. Geographical equity. County' s " equity balance" ( in dollars not to exceed $ 2M) / 20, 000. A

negative equity balance = 0 points.

Points as outlined above will be used to rank projects (e.g. 1 to 5), and then the rankings (not points) will beadded to determine overall project ranking.

0


District 6

City Project Selection Criteria

1. Discuss the project' s merits /benefits and intended effect upon the regionaltransportation network. ( 20 points)

Fund projects that demonstrate the most need and provide the greatest benefit for the cost of

the project. This goal considers the current and future transportation network and how it is

enhanced and maintained. It insures that key elements of the existing transportation systemare maintained and new elements strengthen the network. Key elements of the transportationsystem are those that are necessary from a regional perspective to insure safety and securityto the user /customer of the transportation network. Examples ofbeneficial improvements

would be an anticipated reduction in accidents or a project that impacts high volume of

traffic thereby benefiting a large amount of the general public.

2. Describe how the project will improve the mobility of people and goods. ( 20 points) To provide a greater level of mobility for all people and goods between points within theregion and to major centers beyond the region. Examples that accomplish this goal includeprojects that:

Improve flow and reduce travel time.

Increase service capacity and reliability.

Reduce single occupant vehicles.

Promote transit operations.

Relieve or prevent a worsening of congestion.

Enhance the movement of industrial /agricultural sector freight, tourism and recreational

travel.

Improve access to the existing and developing major activity centers of the region.

3. Describe how the project eliminates structural, geometric and functional deficiencies. 20 points)

Discuss the existing roadway including pavement condition, geometric deficiencies, drainageproblems and safety hazards.

4. Explain how the project contributes to the performance- driven and out - come -based

transportation program for the area. These include; Safety, Infrastructure Condition, CongestionReduction, System Reliability, Freight Movement and Economic Vitality, EnvironmentalSustainability, and Project Delivery. ( 20 points) To insure that projects being proposed are providing solutions to problems identified in thelong -range plan or other area plans. MAP 21 legislation requires that federally fundedtransportation projects originate from planning efforts, specifically Performance Management Plans andassociated Performance Measures.


5. Given ATP 6' s intent on promotion of multimodal/ intermodal projects, how does yourprojectpromote more than one mode of travel? Explain. (5 points)

Create a seamless intermodal transportation system for the movement of people and goods

that provides a connection between different elements of the transportation network. ISTEA

created a focus for transportation that emphasizes intermodal projects. ATP 6 continues to provide local

governments with the flexibility to provide more multimodal solutions to theirtransportation problems. The concept is to promote the most efficient mode in which tomove people and goods. Intermodal access, new system linkages which reduce vehicle miles

of travel, and which provide improved service, are considered under this goal.

6. Describe what public participation has taken place with this project. ( 5 points)

Provide for more creative and effective transportation decisions through public input. Projects that have been through a public review and participation process or have identifiedsteps to be undertaken to get the public and /or interested parties involved will receiveconsideration under this item.

7. Geographic Equity. ( 10 Points) Indicate the number of years it has been since the City' s last federally funded project or the number ofyears the city has been a state -aid city, whichever is less. In other words, for a city that had their lastfederally funded project 4 years ago, they would receive 4 points out of a possible 10. Alternatively, acity that has not had a federally funded project in over 10 years would get the maximum 10 points.

Points as outlined above will be used to rank projects (e.g. 1 to 5), and then the rankings (not points) will beadded to determine overall project ranking.

Capital Plan Project Detail

City of Red Wing, MN

2014 thitt 2018

Project # ROADS -09 -001

Project Name Spring Creek/Hwy 61 Intersection Improvements -466

Account # 466 -43121

Orig Sched Start

Department Roads

Contact Engineering Director

Type Improvement

Useful Life 50

Category Street Construction

Priority 3 Efficiency, labor saving, reso

Status Active

Total Project Cost: $ 5, 320,000

project involves making improvements to consolidate highway access and create a new intersection at Spring Creek Road ( County 53) and61. The Planning and Engineering Study involves this intersection and other recommendations of the Highway 61 Access Management Studyn this immediate area.

iff recommends that the Spring Creek/ Hwy 61 intersection project be funded by utilizing Local Option Sales Tax (General Fund until the tax cancreated) for ROW, engineering, contract administration, and 20% of construction costs; federal funding for the remaining 80% of constructionis; State funding for half ofthe signal costs and all involved TH 61 construction costs; as well as an additional $ 500,000 (Fausto agreed) vards construction to offset benefits to TH 61 for local street connectivity and mobility. ( this will offset some of the local 20% match ofistmction funds); Goodhue County for one fourth of the signal costs and construction related to County Road 53.

2009 - Funding option was changed from Local Option Sales Tax to Federal Highway Funds, but kept in the same years. Also $ 10,000 wasto 2010 from General Fund for Preliminary Engineering involvement with Grunt, state bonding, and Appropriation work towards receiving

Federal funding.

30/ 2010 - City Funding from Fund 227 was approved to buy right -of -way and consrtuct Spring Creek Avenue North extension from Lake StreetTyler Road North in 2010 and/or 2011 at an estimated cost of $800,000.

6/ 2011 - MnDOT pushed the project back to 2017 for construction

4/ 2012 - City pushed the project back to 2018 construction. MnDOT stated they would be OK with letting the project shift a year or two beyond7 construction. If the project is removed from the CIP altogether and congestion or accidents become an issue, MnDOT (Chad Hanson & Greglson) stated they will probably close the median at Carol Lane/ So. Serv. Dr./No. Sm. Dr.; and create a 3/ 4 access at Spring Creek Road/ Ave. 161 traffic has full movement, but the side streets can only turn right onto TH 61).

13 - At the annual Council workshop, Council decided to continue towards construction of this project; Apply for federal funding tot in 2018; Add Spring Creek Road North & North Service Drive to the State Aid System; Bring all available Land purchases forward tofor purchase as they come up for sale; Use Assessment fund as financing of project costs that aren' t paid by MnDOT or FHWA; ate assessments on the project (Mike, Dean & Ralph don't want to force assessments onto businesses).

3 - MnDOT has reduced their fundine for the Droiect from

Justification

The current Spring Creek Road Intersection with Highway 61 is obsolete and needs to be restructured as recommended in the TH 61 AccessManagement Study.

2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

280, 000 Capital Improvement Assessm 700, 000 700, 000 600, 000 200, 000 2, 200, 000

Total Federal Highway Funds 1, 490, 000 1, 490, 000

Prior Expenditures 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

280,000 Planning /Design 100, 000 100,000 100,000 240,000 540,000

TotalLand Acquisition 700,000 700,000 600,000 2,000,000

Construction/Maintenance 2,500,000 2,500,000

Total 800,000 800,000 700,000 2,740,000 5,040,000

Prior Funding Sources 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

280, 000 Capital Improvement Assessm 700, 000 700, 000 600, 000 200, 000 2, 200, 000

Total Federal Highway Funds 1, 490, 000 1, 490, 000

Goodhue County 150,000 150, 000

Produced using the Plan -It Capital Planning Software Paec 1 Tlmrsday, January 09, 1014

9D

Capital Plan Project Detail 2014 thru 2018Department Roads

City of Red Wing, MN Contact Engineering Director

M. S. A.S. 100,000 100,000 100,000 400,000 700,000

MN DOT 500,000 500,000

TOW 800,000 800,000 700,000 2,740,000 5,040,000

reduce travel and time for Public Works and utility operations.

Report criteria:

Produced using the Plan -/t Capital Planning Software Page 2 77mrsday, January 09, 2014

1 D

p

U

EF7

O O

CW7 da

w

00

c7

cityof- re ` ng®

Documents