Report on the MnDOT Cost Participation Policy Update. February 19, 2016

Transcription

1 Report on the 2016 MnDOT Cost Participation Policy Update February 19,

2 Prepared by The Minnesota Department of Transportation 395 John Ireland Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota Phone: Toll-Free: TTY, Voice or ASCII:

3 Contents Contents... 3 Legislative request... 4 Summary of 2016 MnDOT Cost Participation Policy Update... 5 Consulting Representatives of Local Units of Government... 7 Interpretation... 9 Interpreting the Law... 9 Policy Principles Policy Recommendations Non-Policy Recommendations Financial Resources Communication Consistency & Training Design Manuals Recommendations for Further Study Attachment 1: Side-by-Side Comparison

4 Legislative request This report has been prepared to accompany the update to the MnDOT policy on Cost Participation for Cooperative Construction Projects and Maintenance Responsibilities between MnDOT and Local Units of Government. The update was performed at the request of the Minnesota Legislature in Minnesota Laws 2015, Chapter 75, Article 2, Section 52. Sec. 52. COST PARTICIPATION POLICY. The commissioner of transportation, in consultation with representatives of local units of government, shall create and adopt a policy concerning cost participation for cooperative construction projects and maintenance responsibilities between the Department of Transportation and local units of government. The policy must minimize the share of cooperative project costs to be funded by the local units of government, while complying in all respects with the state constitutional requirements concerning allowable uses of the trunk highway fund. The policy should provide and include sufficient flexibility for unique projects and locations if doing so results in a lower total project cost. The policy must be completed and adopted by the commissioner no later than March 1, The legislature did not request a report to the legislature, but this report has been prepared to document the efforts made to consult with representatives of local government, the philosophy for minimizing costs while complying with the constitution, and the rationale for changes that were made to the policy in response. The contents of this report were recommended by the Cost Participation Policy Steering Team and accepted by MnDOT s Governance Council. 4

5 Summary of 2016 MnDOT Cost Participation Policy Update In 2015, MnDOT undertook process to review and update its Cost Participation Policy. The purpose of the review according to Minnesota Laws 2015, Chapter 75, Article 2, Section 52, was to minimize the local cost share of cooperative Trunk Highway construction projects while complying with the provisions of the state constitution. The process included extensive consultation with local agencies as well as internal MnDOT stakeholders. The results of that consultation were used to shape the philosophy for the updated policy and resulted in recommendations for policy change, process improvements, and issues needing further study. To minimize the local share, the policy was changed in the following areas: 1. 60/40 Cost Division. All uses of the 60/40 split have been removed. 2. Parking and Extra Wide Pavements. MnDOT will pay for resurfacing. 3. Roundabouts. Allow higher MnDOT participation in roundabouts. 4. Interchanges. Remove required cost sharing for some TH to TH interchanges. 5. Lighting. Allow MnDOT to install high benefit lighting at its own cost. 6. Signals. Allow greater MnDOT participation for development driven signals. 7. Signal Interconnect. MnDOT may pay for TH corridor interconnection costs. 8. Sidewalks. Allow MnDOT to pay up to 100% for any warranted sidewalk. 9. Pedestrian Crossing Grade Separations. Allow more MnDOT participation in pedestrian/bicycle grade separated crossings. 10. Maintenance. a. MnDOT pays for maintaining the parking lane pavement surface. b. MnDOT pays for maintaining the integrity of noise walls and retaining walls. c. MnDOT pays for all storm sewer maintenance past the catch basins. d. Clarify that MnDOT maintains culverts under local road approaches. Other concerns raised by local agencies did not require a policy change to implement. The following non-policy changes are recommended to improve the cooperative agreement process and minimize local cost shares. 1. Address shortages of funds. Financial resources are limited, but financial shortfalls can be better addressed with early communication (see below). Additional resources are needed to address true financial hardship. Some measures such as exchanging Federal funds can increase efficiency in some cases. 2. Improve communications. a. Improve on early communication. Document pre-agreement discussions. 5

6 b. Improve consultation with local agencies during project scoping. c. Consult local agencies on specifications for elements they will maintain. d. Develop schedules and costs for maintenance and operational activities. e. Increase awareness of lump sum agreement options. 3. Consistency & Training. a. Provide legal guidance on determining trunk highway purpose in accordance with the constitutional language of constructing, improving and maintaining a trunk highway system Minnesota ConstitutionArticle XIV. b. Clarify how funding sources cause inconsistent MnDOT participation. c. Increase training for project managers. d. Improve understanding of the $5000 minimum participation threshold. e. Make use of the exception process for truly unique circumstances. f. Develop a policy exception tracking system. 4. Design Manuals. a. Review design standards to assure that they adequately describe what is needed for a trunk highway purpose. b. Allow sidewalk/paths on both sides of the Trunk highway in urban settings where sidewalk on both sides is expected or already exists. c. Create uniform sidewalk and path design standards. d. Review reimbursement for detours and unofficial detours. Several issues were identified that may warrant a change in the policy, but the time needed to examine and resolve those issues is beyond what can be done by March 1 st, The following issues are recommended for study and consideration for changing the policy to improve clarity and further minimize the local cast share. 1. Incorporate MnSHIP investment priorities into the policy manual. 2. Consider developing and adopting warrants for continuous lighting of roads, sidewalks, and trails to determine the appropriate Trunk Highway share. 3. Review current drainage laws and regulations and adopt new provisions for the cost participation policy that reflect the current regulatory environment. 4. Adopt proposed changes to the bridge aesthetics section of the policy manual as soon as they are completed. 5. Review and clarify separation of maintenance responsibilities where there is local infrastructure on the MnDOT right-of-way. 6

7 Consulting Representatives of Local Units of Government MnDOT employed the following methods to consult with the local units of government with whom it cooperates with on trunk highway construction projects. 1. Cost Participation Policy Steering Team. MnDOT asked for participation from representatives of its local agency transportation partners. Team members assisted with addressing comments and developing policy recommendations. Name Agency Mark Krebsbach Dakota County Engineer John Brunkhorst McLeod County Engineer Russ Matthys Eagan Public Works Director Mary McComber Mayor of Oak Park Heights Anne Finn League of Minnesota Cities Gary Bruggenthies Mn Township Association John Okeson Becker County Commissioner Julie Ring AMC Jim Cownie MnDOT Chief Counsel s Office Brian Gage MnDOT Program Management Jon Huseby MnDOT District 8 Maryanne Kelly-Sonnek MnDOT Cooperative Agreements Nancy Melvin MnDOT Policy Manager Ted Schoenecker MnDOT State Aid Office MaryAnn Frasczak MnDOT Financial Management Rhonda Prestegard MnDOT District 6 Chris Roy MnDOT Project Management & Technical Support Mark Gieseke MnDOT Transportation System Management 2. Local Agency Survey. MnDOT solicited opinions from local agency partners through a survey. The survey was widely distributed using MnDOT s State Aid distribution list to reach county and state-aid city engineers. The League of Minnesota Cities and the Minnesota Township Association also distributed the survey to their members through their distribution lists. 7

8 3. Regional Workshops. MnDOT organized 12 regional workshops that invited stakeholders to discuss cost participation policy concerns in person. 4. Comment Responses. MnDOT recorded every comment received and linked them to specific parts of the policy. Each comment was addressed in groups or individually and those responses were included in the draft policy document 5. Draft Policy Review. MnDOT distributed the draft policy via the same lists and invited all local agencies to review the proposal and make any additional comments. A webinar was offered to hear a recap of the policy changes. 8

9 Interpretation Interpreting the Law Following are the key points for how MnDOT and the Steering Team interpreted the direction of the law about cost participation with local agencies. A. Complying in all respects with the state constitutional requirements concerning allowable uses of the trunk highway fund. The constitution says that there is hereby created a trunk highway fund which shall be used solely for the purposes of constructing, improving and maintaining a trunk highway system as public highways by the state. MnDOT interprets this to mean that costs paid by the Trunk Highway fund must be reasonably associated with constructing, improving, and maintaining trunk highways. The constitution does not further define constructed, improved and maintained as public highways, however guidance on the definition can be taken from case law and related statutes. The Steering Team noted that this lack of a certain definition makes it more difficult for stakeholders to agree on a common interpretation. B. In consultation with representatives of local units of government. MnDOT interpreted this to mean that it should engage local agencies in the development of the new policy, asking for their input, and seeking their support. However, MnDOT s Commissioner retains final authority on what to include in the new policy. C. Cost participation for cooperative construction projects and maintenance responsibilities. MnDOT interpreted this to mean that the policy should consider the total cost of ownership of infrastructure, including both construction costs and ongoing maintenance costs. This may also include costs for right-ofway and project delivery. D. Minimize the share of cooperative project costs to be funded by the local units of government. MnDOT interpreted this to mean that the policy must minimize total costs passed on to the local agency as explained above. Minimizing costs was viewed through the lens of the constitutional direction on the use of Trunk Highway funds to "construct, improve, and maintain the Trunk Highway system". Minimize does not mean eliminate unless the constitution would so indicate. It also means that division of costs need not be done equally on construction and maintenance. It may be done unequally, in other words one agency pay more for construction and another pay more for maintenance. 9

10 E. The policy should provide and include sufficient flexibility for unique projects and locations if doing so results in a lower total project cost. MnDOT interpreted this to mean that poor economic decisions should not be made for the sake of policy compliance. Both MnDOT and local agencies should seek to minimize costs for the taxpayer, which may not always minimize the cost for the local agency or MnDOT. Policy Principles Based upon input from the local agencies involved in the process and the Steering Team, the following principles were agreed upon to guide the decisions about how to determine a minimized local cost share. 1. The cost participation policy incorporates the intention of Complete Streets law and policy, which is to plan, scope, design, implement, operate, and maintain Trunk Highways in consideration of the needs of motorists, pedestrians, transit users and vehicles, bicyclists, and commercial and emergency vehicles moving along and across Trunk Highways. Even so, the policy must always follow the constitution. 2. Trunk Highways serve different purposes in different settings (urban, rural, etc.) and what is needed to construct, improve, and maintain a trunk highway may differ as a result. 3. Costs for local agencies should be minimized through clearly understood and uniformly applied methods based in law or engineering principles. 4. Minimize does not mean eliminate. Some shared infrastructure elements produce shared benefits and justly have shared costs. 5. Retaining some local cost share helps to control the demand from local agencies for added features and it facilitates equitable funds distribution by ascribing costs with local community benefits to the local taxpayers. 6. Costs should be viewed as total life cycle costs, allowing the option for MnDOT to pay more for construction in exchange for or to reduce maintenance costs. The goal is to do what is most efficient and achieves the lowest life cycle cost for taxpayers. 7. MnDOT needs to have the ability to direct its spending of Trunk Highway dollars to its publicly adopted investment priorities. Everything eligible may not be affordable. 8. Maintenance costs should be reviewed for each infrastructure element. A one-size fits-all policy of delegating responsibilities to local agencies is not reasonable. 10

11 Policy Recommendations The Steering Team reviewed the results of the consultation with the local agencies and the input of MnDOT staff and made several policy recommendations for how the new Cost Participation Policy should be developed. The following is a list of the policy changes made to address minimizing local costs. For a complete summary of the changes, refer to the summary of changes report in the appendix. 1. Safety. Change the policy to allow for increased participation when there is a Trunk Highway safety benefit that justifies the cost. This has been incorporated into individual elements where it has been a frequent occurrence, such as isolated intersection lighting. Other elements will be monitored through the policy exception process and considered for revision if repeated occurrences are observed. 2. Division of Costs. All remaining uses of the 90/10 or 60/40 division of cost by city population have been removed from the policy. Costs will now be shared at up to 90% MnDOT and 10% local for all cities. 3. Parking and Extra Wide Pavements. Where there exists MnDOT owned pavement that includes parking lanes and/or is wider than the minimum required for the through lanes, MnDOT will resurface the entire width as necessary until such time as the pavement is reconstructed. At that time the width will be reevaluated and may be left in place, removed, used for another trunk highway eligible purpose, or the extra cost assumed by the local agency. 4. Roundabouts. Provide increased flexibility for MnDOT to pay for a higher share of roundabout costs when there is a minor leg to the roundabout that contributes little traffic to the intersection and when there are disproportionally high grading and surfacing costs on the local approaches. 5. Interchanges. Change local participation from the 90/10 or 60/40 cost share provisions for Trunk Highway to Trunk Highway interchange improvements brought on by development of adjacent property. Instead, consider these on a case-by-case basis. As in all cases, MnDOT may participate at a lower level than the policy would otherwise allow if it is not a MnDOT priority. 6. Lighting. Further study is recommended to create clearer criteria around when lighting is warranted and therefore a necessary cost for constructing or improving the Trunk Highway system. None currently exist. Lighting is still a shared benefit piece of the infrastructure and so costs should be shared, but the policy allows MnDOT to choose to install the lights at its own cost in cases of particularly high benefits to the Trunk Highway system. 7. Signals. Allow greater flexibility for MnDOT to participate in signals that may have become necessitated by adjacent local development. Delete the requirement that these signals always be a 100% local cost. 11

12 8. Signal Interconnections. For a signal system along a Trunk Highway corridor where all of the signals are a part of the Trunk Highway, MnDOT may pay for 100% of the costs of the interconnection. The rest of the signal costs would be split by the procedures in the Traffic Engineering Manual. 9. Sidewalks. Remove the 60/40 and 90/10 cost split language. MnDOT may pay up to 100% for any sidewalk that is warranted by Trunk Highway design standards or is necessitated by the ADA Transition Plan. MnDOT may choose to not pay for sidewalk that is outside the scope of a project if there are not sufficient funds available. 10. Pedestrian Crossing Grade Separations. Current policy only allows participation in grade separated crossings when an expressway is converted to a freeway. Allow MnDOT participation in other pedestrian/bicycle grade separated crossings of a Trunk Highway up to the amount that MnDOT would have paid for an improved at-grade crossing with the rest being a local cost. MnDOT determines what amount is reasonable for the at-grade crossing. 11. Maintenance. Improve the clarity of descriptions of routine and non-routine maintenance where applicable through the policy. Where appropriate, allow local agencies to maintain the assets to their local standards or other law, such as ADA. The following specific changes are recommended. a. MnDOT will take responsibility for the pavement maintenance in Trunk Highway parking lanes. Parking lane pavement maintenance will be a lower priority and may not necessarily be maintained to the same level of service as the through lanes. Maintenance activities will be coordinated with the city. b. Clarified that MnDOT performs maintenance that is necessary for the lifelong integrity of both noise walls and retaining walls. c. MnDOT is paying for a program to update bridge approach guardrail on local roads over or under trunk highways, but will continue to include those as a local item for maintenance in cooperative agreements. A bigger issue remains for locations that are not subject to any agreement but that subject is outside the scope of this policy. d. Routine maintenance of storm sewers performed by local agencies will be limited to clearing sediment, debris, vegetation, and ice from grates and catch basins. e. Update the policy to conform to the maintenance manual that MnDOT owns and maintains culverts under local road approaches after initial installation. f. For lighting, a longer discussion is needed to resolve when MnDOT pays 100% for construction. Maintenance responsibilities will follow that decision. g. With signals, routine maintenance costs for local agencies are being minimized even without policy changes. Signal poles are now galvanized, eliminating the need for painting. The use of LED bulbs reduces the frequency for replacement and reduces utility costs. 12

13 Non-Policy Recommendations During the course of the local agency consultation, it became clear that much of the dissatisfaction does not come from within the policy. For example, inconsistency between Districts is not necessarily due to the policy, but to the interpretation and application of the policy for particular projects of funding sources. Following is a list of potential improvements that could be made to increase the satisfaction of local agency partners. Financial Resources A very common theme heard from both internal and external stakeholders was the lack of sufficient resources to make all the transportation improvements that agencies and the public need and desire. This requires agencies to prioritize their investments. All agencies wish to have enough financial resources to always be a supportive partner in other agencies priorities, but many times those priorities don t match. While MnDOT strives to communicate early with its partners on upcoming projects, there are times when one-time funding is provided to MnDOT on short notice with an expectation of quick delivery of projects. In those instances, local partners may be caught unprepared to provide their local share regardless of how the costs are split. Stable funding remedies this situation. In some cases there is a true financial hardship for the local agency partner. The hardship may be caused by timing of the project or the local agency may simply lack the tax base to finance their local share. In the Local Road Improvement Program, there is an existing account called the Trunk Highway Corridor Projects Account (MS ). Funding this account with new general fund resources would help to address hardship concerns. Another method to minimize local costs would be to engage more aggressively in swapping local Federal funds for state funds. The purpose of the swap would be to increase the efficiency of local project oversight because state dollars have fewer oversight regulations than Federal dollars. On the other hand, MnDOT develops most of its projects to meet Federal requirements in order to have adequate flexibility and to take advantage of additional federal funding such as August redistribution. MnDOT may be able to take on additional Federal funds with no loss of efficiency, provided it has the necessary state resources to pay the matching fund requirements. Communication 1. Strive to improve on early communication with local agencies about potential cost participation. Consider using a memorandum of understanding to document early agreements. 2. Improve on including local agencies during project scoping phase. 13

14 3. Consult local agencies on specifications for elements they will be maintaining. This may require mechanisms to allow MnDOT designers to incorporate local engineer recommendations into MnDOT plans. 4. Develop schedules for maintenance and operational activities with costs for locally maintained infrastructure and include it with the cooperative agreement. 5. Make local agencies aware of the existing option to agree to a lump sum payment that will not change with MnDOT initiated scope changes or bid price variations. Consistency & Training 1. Provide legal guidance on interpreting trunk highway eligibility that considers all of the supporting statutes and case law and make that available to aid MnDOT and its stakeholders in understanding trunk highway purpose. 2. Clarify with Project Managers and partners that federally required mitigation, legal obligations, and varieties of funding sources are all causes of non-uniformity. 3. Increase training for project managers on cost participation and the limitations of project scope to promote increased consistency. 4. Remind Project Managers and partners of the $5000 minimum threshold for participation. Although small, that amount negates the need for many agreements and minimizes local costs. 5. Make use of the exception process for truly unique circumstances. 6. Develop a policy exception tracking system to help promote uniformity by flagging repeated occurrences of similar exception requests. Repeated requests for similar exceptions may indicate a need for a policy revision. Design Manuals 7. The cost participation policy typically states that Trunk Highway funds may be used for whatever elements are necessary to construct, improve, and maintain the Trunk Highways. The policy does not define which elements are needed, but refers to other laws, policies, or engineering documents for determining the need. For example, are two lanes or four lanes needed? How wide should the shoulders be? Should there be a separated or shared bicycle facility? MnDOT should review those referenced documents to assure that they adequately fulfill that role. 8. Change the design manuals to allow for construction of sidewalk/paths on both sides of the Trunk highway in urban settings where sidewalk on both sides is expected or already exists. 14

15 9. Review sidewalk and path design standards. Create uniformity between ADA, road design, bridge design, and bicycle and pedestrian design guidance. The review should also include width needed for snow storage. 10. Review procedures and provide direction on reimbursement for detours and unofficial detours. Currently the policy allows both. 15

16 Recommendations for Further Study A number of improvements to the cooperative agreement process and cost participation policy manual were suggested that could not be completed by the March 1 st, 2016 deadline. The following are recommendations for further study and discussion and possible future adoption into the policy manual. 1. MnDOT should look for ways to clearly incorporate MnSHIP investment priorities into the policy manual. The manual could include a matrix that would prescribe different levels of participation based upon context, functional classification, performance needs, and MnSHIP investment priorities. Presently, investment priorities show up in the policy as in-scope or out-of-scope considerations. MnSHIP could be integrated through an overarching principle in the policy or by being extensively ingrained in individual infrastructure elements. 2. Continuous urban lighting does not have any national standard or warrant by which to justify it for transportation purposes. MnDOT should consider developing and adopting warrants for continuous lighting of roads, sidewalks, and trails to determine the appropriate Trunk Highway share, taking the complete streets policy into consideration. 3. Drainage laws and storm water permit requirements are becoming increasingly complex. Relying upon the runoff coefficient and contributing area formula and physical location of a pond on or off of the right-of-way are no longer sufficient to adequately assess state and local responsibilities and cost shares for drainage ponds and water treatment systems. MnDOT should review current laws and regulations and adopt new provisions for the cost participation policy. 4. The MnDOT bridge office has proposed changes to the bridge aesthetics section of the policy manual to make clarifications and update the participation levels for bridges. Those changes are expected to be ready shortly, but not in time for the March 1 st policy adoption deadline. 5. Several questions were raised about where MnDOT maintenance responsibilities end and local responsibilities begin, especially when within MnDOT s right-ofway. Commonly heard concerns were guardrail on local road bridges over Trunk Highways and road approach pavement surfaces. While the Steering Team understood the concerns, most of these situations exist in areas not covered by cooperative agreements. As such it is recommended that this be addressed with a broader audience in a different process, which may lead to policy change. 16

17 Attachment 1: Side-by-Side Comparison Comparison of Policy Changes that Minimize the Local Cost Share New Policy Section Description 2014 Policy Proposed 2016 Policy Old Policy II.B. Categories of Local Units of Government and Division of Costs Remove the 90/10 and 60/40 split for cost sharing. Two categories of local units of government will be used in determining cost participation for trunk highway parking, frontage roads, and sidewalks. This section has been deleted. II.C.3.a.2.ii.Trunk Highway Parking II.C.3.a.2.ii.Trunk Highway Parking In some cities, there is extra pavement width between the traveled lanes and the parking lanes. MnDOT will pay 100% for resurfacing of that extra width and parking lanes until reconstruction occurs. Parking is considered a shared benefit infrastructure item that will be cost shared 90% state and 10% local in all cases. The 60/40 case has been removed. -- For reconditioning projects, such as mill and overlay or other preservation improvements, MnDOT will participate up to 100% for the roadway width from outside edge of the traffic through-lane to the edge of curb. Where parallel or angle parking currently exists, and the local agency wishes to perpetuate parking, the commissioner must approve continued parking along the trunk highway in writing in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Local Authority and Minnesota Statutes Parking. In these situations, the parking will be considered a cooperative construction item, and MnDOT s share will be limited to 90% or 60%, in accordance with section II.B. Where parallel or angle parking currently exists, and the local agency wishes to perpetuate parking, the commissioner must approve continued parking along the trunk highway in writing in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Local Authority and Minnesota Statutes Parking. For reconstruction projects, MnDOT participation will be limited to 90%. 17

18 Comparison of Policy Changes that Minimize the Local Cost Share New Policy Section Description 2014 Policy Proposed 2016 Policy II.C.3.a.2.iv. Non-traditional Intersection Modifications II.C.3.b.2.i. Trunk Highway-to-Trunk Highway Interchanges and Grade Separations II.C.3.b.2.iv. New Local Road Interchanges or Grade Separations on Expressways When roundabouts have a approach legs with very minor traffic contribution or where approach grading costs are unequally divided, this can lead to a local agency paying an unreasonably large share. Additional provisions were added to allow local costs to be reduced in these two circumstances. Remove the 90/10 or 60/40 cost split for these types of TH to TH interchanges. Change the Interregional Corridor System to the National Highway System. The NHS is larger and will result in higher MnDOT shares for more interchange projects. -- MnDOT may participate to a higher amount in the following situations: Where one leg of approach to the roundabout does not contribute more than 5% to the entering traffic volume, costs for that leg will be divided among the other legs of approach. When approach grading and surfacing costs are disproportionally located on the local approach legs to reduce the need for alignment change on the Trunk Highway legs, the cost of the approach legs will be split equally. Construction costs for specific local actions or for development that creates new or expands existing traffic generators that directly necessitate the need for such improvements will be viewed as cooperative construction. All associated costs will be apportioned in accordance with section II.B o Is either on an Interregional Corridor, or on a High Priority Regional Corridor or trunk highway principal arterial within the Twin Cities urban interstate ring; o Is on an underperforming IRC, High Priority Regional Corridor or principal arterial; Construction costs for specific local actions or for development that creates new or expands existing traffic generators that directly necessitate the need for such improvements will be viewed as cooperative construction items on a caseby-case basis. o Is either on a National Highway System (NHS) route or trunk highway principal arterial within the Twin Cities urban interstate ring; o Is on an underperforming NHS route or principal arterial; 18

19 Comparison of Policy Changes that Minimize the Local Cost Share New Policy Section Description 2014 Policy Proposed 2016 Policy II.C.3.d.2.i. Lighting Make roundabout lighting and diverging diamond lighting a part of the intersection treatment. Local costs may go down depending upon the cost split of the roundabout or diverging diamond (see II.D.3.a.2.iv.) o MnDOT participation in costs for lighting roundabouts at trunk highway intersections will be as follows: o MnDOT will be responsible for costs of the lighting on the main roundabout and the trunk highway legs of the roundabout. The local unit of government will be responsible for the costs of lighting on the local roadway legs of the roundabout. o MnDOT participation will be based on MnDOT standard lighting equipment. If a non-standard system is installed, the local agency will be responsible for all costs over the standard and will own the system. o MnDOT will be up to 100% responsible for lighting the trunk highway ramps of diverging diamond interchanges. MnDOT will participate in up to 50% of the costs of lighting the local roadway and intersection using MnDOT standard equipment, including lighting of the traffic control signal system, along diverging diamond interchanges. If the local agency wishes to use a non-standard equipment, they will be responsible for any additional costs and will own the system. o MnDOT participation in costs for lighting roundabouts at trunk highway intersections or lighting at trunk highway interchanges will be shared in the same ratio as the roundabout, interchange or diverging diamond interchange construction costs. MnDOT participation will be based on MnDOT standard lighting equipment. If a non-standard system is installed, the local agency will be responsible for all costs over the standard and will own the system. 19

20 Comparison of Policy Changes that Minimize the Local Cost Share New Policy Section Description 2014 Policy Proposed 2016 Policy II.C.3.d.2.ii.Traffic Control Signal Systems Delete II.C.3.d.2.ii. Traffic Control Signal Systems II.C.3.e.2.i. Sidewalks MnDOT participation in signals needed to address local development will be based on other provisions, raising MnDOT s participation to up to % and are subject to availability of funds in the District construction budget. MnDOT will pay 100% of the cost for interconnect equipment for systems that serve only a Trunk Highway corridor. MnDOT requires a minimum of 5 feet of unobstructed sidewalks width. If the sidewalk has necessary obstructions, When a local road project or a specific adjacent development directly necessitates the need for a new traffic control signal system, or the revision of an existing traffic control signal system, the local unit of government will be responsible for 100% of the traffic control signal system and for other costs necessary to provide the safe and efficient operation of the trunk highway, as determined by MnDOT. Costs for interconnected system equipment, including the master controller and cabinet, related equipment, and interconnect (hardwire, fiber optic, or wireless) will be pro-rated in the same ratio as the total number of interconnected legs of the system under each jurisdiction to the total number of legs in the interconnected system. Any additional equipment necessary in each traffic control signal system cabinet will be included and pro-rated at each traffic control signal system. When determining MnDOT cost participation, the standard sidewalk width will be a minimum of 6 ft., which includes 5 ft. of unobstructed width, or wider as specified in the MnDOT will be 100% responsible for the costs for interconnected system equipment, including the master controller, related equipment, and interconnect (hardwire, fiber optic, or wireless) for systems on a Trunk Highway corridor. If both Trunk Highway and local corridors are being served, costs will be pro-rated When determining MnDOT cost participation, the standard sidewalk width will be as specified in the MnDOT Road Design Manual or the MnDOT Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge 20

21 Comparison of Policy Changes that Minimize the Local Cost Share New Policy Section Description 2014 Policy Proposed 2016 Policy MnDOT would participate in more width. MnDOT Road Design Manual or the MnDOT Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Manual. Design Manual. II.C.3.e.2.i. Sidewalks II.C.4.a Delete the 90/10 or cost split. Reduce the number of situations to where sidewalk is needed and where it is not. Allow MnDOT to participate up to 100% for warranted sidewalk that the District agrees to install. Delete the local responsibility for pavement maintenance of the parking lane. This provision does not include snow removal on parking lanes. See draft policy for current participation. Local units of government will also be responsible for maintenance activities on trunk highway right-ofway associated with: Roadway width used for parking, including designated parking lanes and shoulders used for parking; See the draft policy for proposed participation. Bullet on parking lane maintenance has been deleted. II.C.4.d. Drainage Maintenance Reduce the maintenance responsibilities of the local agencies to keeping grates and catch basins clear. All other maintenance needed will be done by MnDOT. Routine drainage maintenance is defined as any work needed to preserve the existing drainage facility and to prevent conditions such as flooding, erosion, sedimentation or accelerated deterioration of the system which would cause adverse safety, environmental, traffic Routine drainage maintenance is defined as removal of sediment, debris, vegetation, and ice from, the grates and catch basins informing the District Maintenance Engineer of any needed repairs. 21

22 Comparison of Policy Changes that Minimize the Local Cost Share New Policy Section Description 2014 Policy Proposed 2016 Policy capacity, aesthetic or cost concerns to governmental and regulatory agencies, and the public. Such work typically does not require replacement of existing drainage infrastructure and may include removal of sediment, debris, vegetation, and ice from structures, grates and pipes, repair of minor erosion problems, and minor structure and pipe repair. II.C.4.e.1.ii.Traffic Control Signal Systems Maintenance Signal poles now come galvanized, meaning they do not need paint unless desired for aesthetic reasons. LED lamps last longer, requiring fewer replacements, and use less energy reducing electric bills. All of these are local agency responsibilities that have seen cost reductions without a policy change. No changes proposed. 22