HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.b. Transit Update%D EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Work Session: January 13, 2010
AGENDA ITEM: Transit Update
AGENDA SECTION:
New Business
PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development
Director,
AGENDA NO. Z
Eric Zweber, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS: MVTA Budget Information, February 12
City Council minutes and Packet
Information; proposed Cedar Avenue
APPROVED BY:
BRT feeder map, Current Route 420
map.
OW
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide comment on local transit service and future park -
and -ride locations associated with the BRT.
DISCUSSION
MVTA
On February 12, 2009, the City Council held a special meeting to discuss whether to opt out of the
MVTA cooperative or stay in the organization. On a 3 -2 vote, the Council voted to continue its
membership predicated on three actions approved by the MVTA Board. The three items were
change Rosemount's express routes, construct a park and ride, and place appropriate signage for the
park and ride located currently at the Community Center. Two of the three items have been
addressed over the last year; with approval pending of a Downtown park and ride.
A park and ride /new service application was submitted in the last federal solicitation from
Congestion Management Air Quality ( CMAQ) funding. The Rosemount facility has scored favorably
and is currently recommended for funding based upon the projected level of federal funds for the
2013 -14 cycle. There is some question if $11 million will be turned back into the CMAQ funding
pool. Even without that $11 million, it appears that the Rosemount park and ride scored sufficiently
high, as compared to other projects, that it would continue to be placed into the approved funding
option. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB)
took action at their January 6, 2010 meeting. The TAB is scheduled to take action on the funding
options forwarded also in January. Additional processing is required and the projects must be added
to the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) which will take several additional months.
Meanwhile City staff has had some preliminary discussions with Met Council and MnDot staff about
advance construction of the park and ride site. Because much of the funding is federal, approvals
would also need to be obtained from them.
While the park and ride has not been constructed within the desired timeline, there has been
significant progress made by the partnership between MVTA and the City of Rosemount, to address
previously relayed concerns. After the final federal funding proposal has been approved by TAB,
staff will begin exploring options for advance construction. Of course one of the issues will be
which organization can pay for the park and ride with reimbursement to follow, when the federal
funds become available. City staff has also applied for a grant from the Dakota County CDA to
provide enhancements to the park and ride site; above and beyond what was envisioned from
MVTA. The grant would allow installation consistent with the amenities Downtown, such as
decorative lighting and planters. A decision on the grant request has not as yet been made. Staff has
also been contacted by Representative Sterner's office about adding the park and ride into the State
Bonding Bill.
Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit
For a number of years, City staff has been working with our neighboring communities, Dakota
County and the regional transit providers on a technical advisory committee (TAC) to plan for
shoulder running bus rapid transit (BRT). The planning effort is designed to provide BRT service
on Cedar Avenue starting in 2012. The implementation phase of the planning exercise is coming
soon and the Metropolitan (Met) Council has requested that all communities involved with and
affected by the BRT approve the implementation plan. The request for approval is anticipated to be
in March or April 2010. Initial road construction for the BRT is anticipated to begin in the fall of
2010. Salima (Sam) O'Connell from the Dakota County Office of Transit will be attending the work
session to provide an update on the Cedar Avenue BRT process.
In the previous planning phases of the Cedar Avenue BRT, a lot of effort has been put into what is
the infrastructure improvement that will need to occur to accommodate BRT service and
automobile traffic in the year 2030. In the current phase of planning, the effort has focused on what
are the infrastructure and transit improvements needed to get the BRT up and running in 2012 and
projecting future transit and infrastructure needs for 2015. Most of improvements needed for 2012
service directly impact Apple Valley and northern Lakeville, but some of these improvements will
have impacts that carry over into Rosemount.
While attending the TAC meetings for the Cedar Avenue BRT, two issues related to the operation
of the BRT have been brought up that staff would like the Council's input. The first is the local and
feeder service to the BRT line. The second is the location of park and rides and /or transit stations
along the BRT line.
Local /Feeder Bus SeMce
To determine the ridership forecasts on the BRT line, a local and feeder bus system was created to
maximize the number of transit riders from areas and communities (including Rosemount) outside
of walking distance from a BRT stop. This system proposes the abandonment of the existing local
420 route from Rosemount to the Dakota County Western Service Center, past the target and Cub
Foods in Apple Valley to the Apple Valley Transit Station and replacing it with a line that would run
from Downtown Rosemount to the 157th Street Transit Station and then to the Apple Valley Transit
Station at 157`'' Street and Cedar Avenue. While staff understands how this would be beneficial as a
feeder to the BRT, staff is also concerned that this plan overlooks the local needs of Rosemount
residents who are looking to use the existing 420 route for shopping or employment along County
Road 42 or within Apple Valley. In talking with Sam O'Connell, she has stated that she has heard
from other communities concerned about the assumptions used when proposing local service
routes. She noted that local service is not being evaluated in the feeder system modeling and the
local route system of individual transit providers such as Minnesota Valley Transit Authority
(MVTA) is outside the scope of this implementation plan. Sam suggested that the City of
Rosemount provide a comment to the plan that local bus service needs to be evaluated separate
from the Cedar Avenue BRT planning study to ensure that the local needs are serviced and not
reduced as a result of the feeder service created for the Cedar Avenue BRT. Staff would like to hear
the comments from the Council regarding this subject.
140`h Street and CedarAvenue Transit Service
After determining ridership projections for the Cedar Avenue BRT, it is apparent that there will be
significant need for increased park- and -ride spaces along Cedar Avenue by 2030. The study also
indicates that additional spaces may be needed in 2012 even beyond the recent expansion at the
Apple Valley Transit Station and the current construction of the Cedar Grove Transit Station. The
TAC has been looking into the most logical place to expand park- and -ride capacity along the Cedar
Avenue BRT and the discussion has centered on an expansion of the Palomino park- and -ride or the
creation of a new park- and -ride location on the northwest corner of 140`' Street and Cedar Avenue.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both proposals. The advantage of the Palomino
expansion is that it is an existing, successful facility but the disadvantage is that the Palomino
location is "off line" for Cedar Avenue service resulting in an increase in travel time. The advantage
for the 140`' Street park- and -ride would be that it would be located "on line" which would minimize
the travel time but its construction would require land acquisition increasing project costs. If the
140`' Street park- and -ride was constructed, the Cedar Avenue BRT would not stop at the Palomino
park- and -ride.
Beyond these issues there are others that may impact Rosemount more specifically. The current
140`' Street transit stop on the Cedar Avenue BRT is a walk up station providing no direct benefit to
Rosemount residents. If a 140`'' Street park - and -ride was created, this could provide a location for
Rosemount residents to board the Cedar Avenue BRT that is more attractive than the other, current
park- and —ride locations. The existing Apple Valley Transit Station is located at 157`' Street and
Cedar Avenue which requires Rosemount residents to travel south to access the BRT and head
north to Minneapolis. It is assumed through antidotal information that many Rosemount residents
currently drive "upstream" and access the Cedar commuter service from Eagan. Creation of the
140`' park- and -ride would also change the modeling for the feeder route noted above. If there was a
park- and -ride at 140'h Street, many of Rosemount's residents could drive west on Connemara Trail
in Rosemount and 140`' Street in Apple Valley to ride the Cedar Avenue BRT service eliminating the
need to travel south before taking the transit north. Feeder service to Cedar Avenue may also be
reevaluated to use this new park- and -ride location.
One possible disadvantage of the 140`'' Street park- and -ride is that its increased cost could use more
of the regional transit investment dollars leaving less money available for transit services in
Rosemount. Sam O'Connell has expressed her desire to conduct a planning study in the near future
to determine where the best site for additional park- and -ride spaces servicing the Cedar Avenue
BRT should be located. Staff would like the Council to consider if the expansion of Palomino or
the creation of a 1406' Street park- and -ride would be better for Rosemount or if there are any
particular issues that should be considered if a planning study was conducted to determine the best
location.
Next Steps
Following the approval of the implementation plan, the environmental review for the Cedar Avenue
BRT will need to be conducted before minor construction begins in the fall of 2010, including utility
relocations and minor grading. The majority of the construction will occur in two phases, one in the
summer of 2011 and other in the summer of 2012, with station to station BRT service scheduled to
begin in the fall of 2012. During construction, additional ancillary transit service planning could be
conducted such as the local transit service network or additional park- and -ride space siting. The
Council can consider what issues should be considered in any planning of ancillary transit service
and the level of involvement of the City in these planning efforts.
RECOMMENDATION
This memorandum serves to update the Council on a variety of transit related issues affecting
Rosemount residents. Staff will continue to monitor both the CMAQ process and the Cedar Avenue
BRT. Staff anticipates providing a formal letter related to the items noted above regarding local
transit service and future park- and -ride locations associated with the BRT. It would be beneficial in
drafting the letter if the Council could provide comments on these two subjects.
93
To: MVTA Board Date: December 4, 2009
From: Finance Committee
Re: Approval of 2010 Operating Budget
Requested Action
Approve the 2010 Operating Budget consisting of revenues of $14,047,962, expenditures
of $117,526,708, funding of one capital project through the operating budget ($165,000)
and use of fund balance of $3,643,746.
Back round
The Finance Committee met on September 10, October 14 and December 2 to review the
2010 budget. Met Council decisions are greatly reducing MVTA's revenue in 2010. The
following revenue reductions have occurred:
• MVTA will not receive any state appropriation in 2010. State General Fund
Appropriations are no longer being distributed to the Suburban Transit Providers
(STPs). In 2008, MVTA received appropriations of $1.4 million. In 2009, Met
Council budgeted $.8 million for MVTA's share of the appropriation. However,
Met Council only distributed $.4 million because of their budget shortfall.
• Allocated MVST (over 21.5 percent statutorily required) has been reduced by
$1.5 - $2.0 million from 2008 and 2009 Original Budget. Met Council
discontinued distributing allocated MVST to the STP's in the second half of 2009,
again due to their budget shortfall. Met Council has decided to apportion MVST
only after certain conditions are met. For 2010, Met Council has authorized
distributing $1.9 million of Allocated MVST to MVTA.
Lack of these revenue sources will draw down MVTA's reserves to dangerous levels by
the end of 2010 (1.8 months of expenditures versus MVTA's policy of 4 months). These
reserves are needed because a significant portion of MVTA's revenue is received on a
reimbursement basis (convenience fares, operating and capital grants).
Met Council has also stated that they expect MVTA to use a portion of their federal NTD
dollars to fund preventative maintenance and the Rosemount service expansion. Although
the Finance Committee thinks that the NTD dollars should be used to fund only our
capital project needs, because RTC funding is limited, they have agreed to include
$100,000 of NTD funds in the budget.
MVTA's 2010 Operating Budget contains the following committed service expansions:
Cedar Lakeville, Cedar Grove and Route 436 service. Revenue to cover the service costs
is coming from CTIB, Met Council and Federal (JARC) funding sources. The remainder
of the budget preserves the current services and facilities only. The budget also funds one
capital project (construction of bus -to -bus transfer areas in the vicinity of Lone Oak and
Lexington) of $165,000. The above described actions result in a 2010 Operating Budget
94
with revenues of $14,047,962, expenditures of $17,691,708 including the capital project,
and use of fund balance of $3,643,746.
As of December 31, 2008, the unreserved fund balance is $8.4 million. At October's
Board meeting, an additional $50,000 of fund balance was reserved for insurance claim
needs. This action put the unreserved fund balance at $8.3 million. The fund balance will
be further reduced by the projected 2009 deficit of $2.0 million, decreasing the
unreserved fund balance to $6.3 million. The $6.3 million represents 4.8 months of
coverage based on the projected 2009 expenditures or 4.3 months of 2010 operating
expenditures. The 2010 deficit of $3.6 million, which includes a $165,000 use of fund
balance for capital projects, results in a 2010 year -end fund balance of $2.7 million or 1.8
months of operating expenditures. This is below MVTA policy of maintaining 4 months
of operating expenditures.
Impact
The 2009 Amended Operating Budget has a deficit of $2.0 million. This, along with the
additional reserving of fund balance lowers the unreserved fund balance to $6.3 million.
With MVTA projected 2010 operating deficit of $3.6 million and $.2 million fund
balance usage for capital projects, the unreserved fund balance will drop to $2.7 million
or 1.8 months of expenditures. If the Board wishes to maintain fund balance at 4 months,
service will need to be decreased, facility maintenance levels will need to be lowered
and/or money needs to be requested from Met Council.
Recommendation
It is recommended by the Finance Committee that the Board approve the 2010 Operating
Budget consisting of revenues of $14,047,962, expenditures of $117,526,708, funding of
one capital project through the operating budget ($165,000) and use of fund balance of
$3,643,746 with the understanding that adoption of the 2010 Budget brings the
unreserved fund balance to below the Board's policy of maintaining a minimum of 4
months of expenditures. It is further recommended that the Board adopt the attached
resolution that states Board -held financial principles.
96
M O
O LO O O c
rn
d �
It
�tiNU r
>
J U)
O M O LO O O O
yC � ti co N LO
d w O LC) h T O M
d) C .O co co (D N
IL �
co T
i ohm
T-
0.0 N
m N co CD O O O
M r T LOO (0 M
N v 'D LO COO LL O CD M
i (a E 3 co
CO
L �
Q.
>> O O (D LO LO O T
C7 N 00 (D Ltd O (0 N
r 00 fE CA C` LA a- (O M
� N °c N LO °D
N Q �
r �
O d
N N
O
C Q o
L co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to LO Cl) d' N O
I- O O O O O O O M Cl) 00 00 LO
t` O O O O 0) O o M N LO O N
L (D LCj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO N N N
LO T d' N v CO T N TO O r-
T N T
O 0000000000 o O O O
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 0 0
M M
0 0 0 0 o O o o O CD 0 0 0 0 0
LO Ln
•� v
0
0
� rn
rn rn
� M
CD T
O O co O
co
CO M
T
CD O LTC) O
O CD
d ti
N
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It It
ti O O O O 0 0 0 LO LO CA 00
_ ti O O O O CA O O M N T (D
(D LO O O O 0 0 0 M O M N (4
It LO T d' N d' M T N Ul 00 C)
T
d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OT O V O
ti 0 0 0 0 LO O O N I` N O 00
M O O O (D O O O O LO ti LO M
M LO O LO ti O LO LO (fl -1 LO 00 LO
CA LO Cl) N N N T CO Ln T T
C) M T M
T T T
co �' t M O O M M O M M T LO O
d N V� O O O f` Cl) T M N LO
_ LO O 00 LO CA LO CD N N O 00 cO cO
Nrl- LO T CD T It LO LO Cl) ti O
Cl) N M T T T LO r— t- O
CT
O N
a)LO 'T
tC) LO O (0
N T In O
r— T T
00 T T
Cl)
T
O o o O
O O O O
o Oom
Ln o 0
� � o
(~i
00
N Lo LO
M cO (D
cl T r
O
N
T O O
N N N
N T T
d'
T
O O LO Ln
N O) O O
N r- LO M
O T
M T T
T
Cl) O O O
(D O O O
000 M LOO 00
ti
N
T
O ti CO M
T 00 "' O
N O OD O
N N c0 O
00 T T
N
T
i o Z NT T N CO It (0 M ti M M O T N M 'V' T N Cl) ' T N
a O T T T T N N N N m M M M M O O_ O_ O T T
VO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V co (D (o (D CO (0 m O 0 CD c0 O CD O CD CD (D cO (0 co (0
a
m ca
V) tn a
l6 N N C O N w O
o O N E U N U C 2 O O in ) U N J
O �,� Z O O_� U to
:3 C O cl) Vi f6 O Q O ` •0 U U U @ V f6 +-• C @ 'D
O C E c6 N Q C Q O O0) J C N
ci y N¢ a 4 O 0) O W OL6 ? C cn T U) •C . 06 N f6 7
C ` m r� ULLJ m 3 N .0 CL O2 c1C N (U 3 C6 E yU O
O O S E C LL d U Q m (n C E E '0 O L_ L) ❑. 0 7 7— G 3 3—
.)�QJOinw OO4 -LLLL LY6 ymm �o
J U U) F� C F 000 FO— 030 F-
d
(D
Ct
N
0
0
a
N
T
co
w
O
T
m
Cn
Q
O
CL
O LL
=7
N N
L co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to LO Cl) d' N O
I- O O O O O O O M Cl) 00 00 LO
t` O O O O 0) O o M N LO O N
L (D LCj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO N N N
LO T d' N v CO T N TO O r-
T N T
O 0000000000 o O O O
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 0 0
M M
0 0 0 0 o O o o O CD 0 0 0 0 0
LO Ln
•� v
0
0
� rn
rn rn
� M
CD T
O O co O
co
CO M
T
CD O LTC) O
O CD
d ti
N
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It It
ti O O O O 0 0 0 LO LO CA 00
_ ti O O O O CA O O M N T (D
(D LO O O O 0 0 0 M O M N (4
It LO T d' N d' M T N Ul 00 C)
T
d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OT O V O
ti 0 0 0 0 LO O O N I` N O 00
M O O O (D O O O O LO ti LO M
M LO O LO ti O LO LO (fl -1 LO 00 LO
CA LO Cl) N N N T CO Ln T T
C) M T M
T T T
co �' t M O O M M O M M T LO O
d N V� O O O f` Cl) T M N LO
_ LO O 00 LO CA LO CD N N O 00 cO cO
Nrl- LO T CD T It LO LO Cl) ti O
Cl) N M T T T LO r— t- O
CT
O N
a)LO 'T
tC) LO O (0
N T In O
r— T T
00 T T
Cl)
T
O o o O
O O O O
o Oom
Ln o 0
� � o
(~i
00
N Lo LO
M cO (D
cl T r
O
N
T O O
N N N
N T T
d'
T
O O LO Ln
N O) O O
N r- LO M
O T
M T T
T
Cl) O O O
(D O O O
000 M LOO 00
ti
N
T
O ti CO M
T 00 "' O
N O OD O
N N c0 O
00 T T
N
T
i o Z NT T N CO It (0 M ti M M O T N M 'V' T N Cl) ' T N
a O T T T T N N N N m M M M M O O_ O_ O T T
VO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V co (D (o (D CO (0 m O 0 CD c0 O CD O CD CD (D cO (0 co (0
a
m ca
V) tn a
l6 N N C O N w O
o O N E U N U C 2 O O in ) U N J
O �,� Z O O_� U to
:3 C O cl) Vi f6 O Q O ` •0 U U U @ V f6 +-• C @ 'D
O C E c6 N Q C Q O O0) J C N
ci y N¢ a 4 O 0) O W OL6 ? C cn T U) •C . 06 N f6 7
C ` m r� ULLJ m 3 N .0 CL O2 c1C N (U 3 C6 E yU O
O O S E C LL d U Q m (n C E E '0 O L_ L) ❑. 0 7 7— G 3 3—
.)�QJOinw OO4 -LLLL LY6 ymm �o
J U U) F� C F 000 FO— 030 F-
d
(D
Ct
N
0
0
a
N
T
co
w
O
T
m
Cn
Q
O
CL
O LL
=7
N N
a)LO 'T
tC) LO O (0
N T In O
r— T T
00 T T
Cl)
T
O o o O
O O O O
o Oom
Ln o 0
� � o
(~i
00
N Lo LO
M cO (D
cl T r
O
N
T O O
N N N
N T T
d'
T
O O LO Ln
N O) O O
N r- LO M
O T
M T T
T
Cl) O O O
(D O O O
000 M LOO 00
ti
N
T
O ti CO M
T 00 "' O
N O OD O
N N c0 O
00 T T
N
T
i o Z NT T N CO It (0 M ti M M O T N M 'V' T N Cl) ' T N
a O T T T T N N N N m M M M M O O_ O_ O T T
VO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V co (D (o (D CO (0 m O 0 CD c0 O CD O CD CD (D cO (0 co (0
a
m ca
V) tn a
l6 N N C O N w O
o O N E U N U C 2 O O in ) U N J
O �,� Z O O_� U to
:3 C O cl) Vi f6 O Q O ` •0 U U U @ V f6 +-• C @ 'D
O C E c6 N Q C Q O O0) J C N
ci y N¢ a 4 O 0) O W OL6 ? C cn T U) •C . 06 N f6 7
C ` m r� ULLJ m 3 N .0 CL O2 c1C N (U 3 C6 E yU O
O O S E C LL d U Q m (n C E E '0 O L_ L) ❑. 0 7 7— G 3 3—
.)�QJOinw OO4 -LLLL LY6 ymm �o
J U U) F� C F 000 FO— 030 F-
d
(D
Ct
N
0
0
a
N
T
co
w
O
T
m
Cn
Q
O
CL
O LL
=7
N N
d
(D
Ct
N
0
0
a
N
T
co
w
O
T
m
Cn
Q
O
CL
O LL
=7
N N
rn r`orn00 v Lc
10 r 00 O (D O C,
1 00 0) 00 t` LO C�
co M M LO P-
M N N
0 O (D O O O C
M
I O CD O (A M O C
r O O LO m
r Cn (O d M
Cn �i (D r
1 0 (A LO LO r N C
LO (D O) r !�
N r
O
O
O
1000 (00 co 0)0000`,
> r�: M CO t` 00 N r
co N CO M (0
M N
1 0 O co O O O C
0 O Cl) O O LO C
O O m d0' ((DD d' (,
N r
> O N N� O r
(0 LO co co M a
I N M N Cl)
� r
a)(0coccoMCC
CD C)000c
I (D(D(D(0(Da
9
a� c
� E
.Z a
) _
R 4
a) c 0
No E Lt
N
N to E @ n
m co 'ow i
(D 'IT rn (C
1� d• 00 CA (D 11 00 m CC
to O O 0) LO CO
(D r r
(0 N O O O c
co co O c0 O
LO co O U') O
c- M (`') N
r
CO co N h M c
M co M M -
N N t- 1- CA
M c'
N 000 M — C
cli N O (5 O
LO M r N
O
O
O
I LO r 'd O) O (L
I (o t— O CO It
I It O O r CO C
N N M M LO c
LO r
CO CO O O O O C
10 O O O 0 C
1 N N ccoo It LLn C,
LO r
CA O ti LO c
r m c0 M LO
1� d M N d U
00 It LO C`
v r-
r N CO ';t U
M M Cl) Cl) d
mo(0 oa
i
V)
U_ U)
U C
0 m
CL
3: C d
0 !i 'C S
m
U) —1 �C
F0- U
M O 00 00 00 LOO (CS
O N M N LO LO CN
a) d N
d•
N 0 0 0 0 0(
� U
O
N
iLO o0o00a
00 c
DD
lf) c
M
I N O O O O� c
LO O c
� r c
O
O
O
O
> O O O O O (D c
�
O N O O O
> 6j M r N M
M
> O O O O O O C c c
1 0 O O O O O C
> LO LO N N LO t- U
I N cl r r
(rD O 0 LO 00 O C
(D d_ 0
r �7 ('') M co M 0
ILn d �-N
v
i o Ul Cl) � � u
O o 0 0 0 C
> CO (0 co CD (0 (L
Ln
CU
N CL CL c
U
a0 It
CL c
(n c
rn U c co Q c c
a) a co c
m
F0- 2
I O
i r
i O
I CA
. CA
I CD
I LO
1 M
I O
f
I O
• N
O
O
O
N
> (fl
' CA
O
O
M
(00
C)
)
)
)
)
3
s
i
0
F-
LM
d
N
rn
0
0
N
a
a
r
Cl)
0
O
N
m
N
C.
Co C2
0 W
00
N N
0)
O O IX
O
O
O O
(O V ' C
O
N
C O
O` m
co
a
c�
y w
o O C
Y R
R U.
J
O O C
vU
R
U.
O O C
Q (U6
U-
� U
Q N
7
v�
J
N
0 o c
C +.
O O CI
co
C
M
�
�
B
r
N
m
O O C
O C
C
p
C O
O c
(A r+
N
d
Q m
G%
LL
r Q.
>%O
O co c(
CD
LA
O c
r
O R
O d C`
� N
N v
� d
O�
N N
y O
C C
C
L
Z
N c
g (L
U
(D co a
Q
m
c
c
m
�
R
U
(A
C1
�
a
0a
0
C
Ln
rn
.=00 a
�
.a:
•�UUQ
-i
U
Ii
rn r`orn00 v Lc
10 r 00 O (D O C,
1 00 0) 00 t` LO C�
co M M LO P-
M N N
0 O (D O O O C
M
I O CD O (A M O C
r O O LO m
r Cn (O d M
Cn �i (D r
1 0 (A LO LO r N C
LO (D O) r !�
N r
O
O
O
1000 (00 co 0)0000`,
> r�: M CO t` 00 N r
co N CO M (0
M N
1 0 O co O O O C
0 O Cl) O O LO C
O O m d0' ((DD d' (,
N r
> O N N� O r
(0 LO co co M a
I N M N Cl)
� r
a)(0coccoMCC
CD C)000c
I (D(D(D(0(Da
9
a� c
� E
.Z a
) _
R 4
a) c 0
No E Lt
N
N to E @ n
m co 'ow i
(D 'IT rn (C
1� d• 00 CA (D 11 00 m CC
to O O 0) LO CO
(D r r
(0 N O O O c
co co O c0 O
LO co O U') O
c- M (`') N
r
CO co N h M c
M co M M -
N N t- 1- CA
M c'
N 000 M — C
cli N O (5 O
LO M r N
O
O
O
I LO r 'd O) O (L
I (o t— O CO It
I It O O r CO C
N N M M LO c
LO r
CO CO O O O O C
10 O O O 0 C
1 N N ccoo It LLn C,
LO r
CA O ti LO c
r m c0 M LO
1� d M N d U
00 It LO C`
v r-
r N CO ';t U
M M Cl) Cl) d
mo(0 oa
i
V)
U_ U)
U C
0 m
CL
3: C d
0 !i 'C S
m
U) —1 �C
F0- U
M O 00 00 00 LOO (CS
O N M N LO LO CN
a) d N
d•
N 0 0 0 0 0(
� U
O
N
iLO o0o00a
00 c
DD
lf) c
M
I N O O O O� c
LO O c
� r c
O
O
O
O
> O O O O O (D c
�
O N O O O
> 6j M r N M
M
> O O O O O O C c c
1 0 O O O O O C
> LO LO N N LO t- U
I N cl r r
(rD O 0 LO 00 O C
(D d_ 0
r �7 ('') M co M 0
ILn d �-N
v
i o Ul Cl) � � u
O o 0 0 0 C
> CO (0 co CD (0 (L
Ln
CU
N CL CL c
U
a0 It
CL c
(n c
rn U c co Q c c
a) a co c
m
F0- 2
I O
i r
i O
I CA
. CA
I CD
I LO
1 M
I O
f
I O
• N
O
O
O
N
> (fl
' CA
O
O
M
(00
C)
)
)
)
)
3
s
i
0
F-
LM
d
N
rn
0
0
N
a
a
r
Cl)
0
O
N
m
N
C.
Co C2
0 W
00
N N
98 C
O (
COQ -40000 0
h O
000 C
O d
d O
O Lo 00 h 0 0
0 O
O o 0 U
O N O C
C, N M h 0
00 w
wi .- C
N N
0 O
N 0 m
0.
L6
_y >, 0
000000
0 0 0<
d V
Y to
LL
W L
000000
O O O C
w_
U L)
Lo
LL
000000
0 0 o C
Q A
LL
U
O
Q ()
0
C7 �
U �
O
J
d
CD CD )
LO � O
C
) L
a) w O
O Lfl co h 0 0
0 O
O O O Lf
w O N
N LO 00 h L
LO L
Lfl M O (`
L O
O .5 Co
CD
0 N
am a
a)�� -NO N
NNNC
C) M
M (O Lf) h O M
M O
O O O LC
0000010 C)
) O 0 0 0 0 0 00 O
Ln r O O IQ C CO O
J LO d' La7 COO 'd' CMO N
d' �
] • • •
• • • •
] • • • • •
I�
IC7
1�
l�
0
L•�
0 0 0 0 0 0 C:>1,:,
0 C3 CD CD
Ln C O Ln O (O O
O LO 0 O Ch 00 O
LO � co r
Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LO NNNNU)N N °
(,o c o r
d' 0) O L6 CQ
co PI: M
M
O
O
co
LN
h
u d- rn
co Ln
N � N
L9
T
L
h-
c U M
O Cl)
h > h
0
U
O
O C N
r O CO O
N u) ";t f":
NO N N
L)
� U r'
C
- M 00
(00 COO M
0 03
LO O LO
LO 't 0)
N N
L! 00 M
.- 00 O
CY) N �
h o O h
V' O (D -
N M O M
L(f Cl) �
L-' O C O
'O O h h d N O N (O M "T h 00
p C Cl) N 00 LO d (O N r
y
r
N r O O
(0 m LO LO
�'- Q'
it0 NO -t OMO 00 0) 00 0m It MOOOO v h O h
d O 0 0 (O 00 (D O O N M LO It Cl) co d' Cl) M co N N
(�1 tht} (',O O 00 h O Ln M CO M O O O CO LO O O
co
N p ,�0, d' N CO CA Cl) h O It .- cc � ti (V 1- � co (D 0) m
N Q LO Lfj
r
O
N
O
C Q G m
C D Z N M In N M N M V Ln h (O 'O
a V' t :3 co N 00 00 00 Co 00 7
O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) m
Q (0(0(0(00 co(0(OO 00000(0
N
� � O
O N
w a) Q
O >,
LO C a)
>` > 3 O ZT (n a) N C
G = n. W o L a) U) C N a�
C 0 rn Q_ .� j LL 0= O O C N
O U O O C N L O "0 a) N O C N
C6 LU N
C d O ID a) 4 ` O U O f0 L L .0 N O a
O O C n- C Y 0 O 'C L> E N U E 'C f6 > X ~ a) W
O (U E a) 0 7 d 3 O` O 0 0
U w 7a- 0�QO�O �O (L Ca (a t�HCD F-27i .Q C N
J U c F-° 0 I-0 U 0 0 � F0-
lal
(0
N
O
O
O
N
y
co
w
O
co
O
7
m
to
C2
O v.
o W
Z�
N N
Q (0(0(0(00 co(0(OO 00000(0
N
� � O
O N
w a) Q
O >,
LO C a)
>` > 3 O ZT (n a) N C
G = n. W o L a) U) C N a�
C 0 rn Q_ .� j LL 0= O O C N
O U O O C N L O "0 a) N O C N
C6 LU N
C d O ID a) 4 ` O U O f0 L L .0 N O a
O O C n- C Y 0 O 'C L> E N U E 'C f6 > X ~ a) W
O (U E a) 0 7 d 3 O` O 0 0
U w 7a- 0�QO�O �O (L Ca (a t�HCD F-27i .Q C N
J U c F-° 0 I-0 U 0 0 � F0-
lal
(0
N
O
O
O
N
y
co
w
O
co
O
7
m
to
C2
O v.
o W
Z�
N N
lal
(0
N
O
O
O
N
y
co
w
O
co
O
7
m
to
C2
O v.
o W
Z�
N N
ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING PROCEEDINGS
FEBRUARY 12, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a Special Meeting of the Rosemount City Council
was held on Thursday, February 12, 2009 at 6:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall,
2875 145`s Street West, Rosemount.
Mayor Droste called the meeting to order with Council Members DeBettignies, Shoe -
Corrigan, Weisensel and Bills attending. Staff members present included City Administrator
Johnson, Communications Coordinator Cox, Community Development Director Lindquist,
City Engineer Brotzler and City Clerk Domeier. The Pledge of Allegiance was said.
ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA
City Administrator Johnson stated that the minutes from the March 11, 2009 MVTA board
meeting were distributed for City Council reference.
OLD BUSINESS
2.a. Consider notice to Minnesota Valley Transit Authority to withdraw from
membership at the end of 2009
City Administrator Johnson stated that staff had further conversations with both the Met
Council and MVTA during the last week to clarify the financial estimates of revenues and
expenditures if the City were to leave the MVTA. He provided the financial information
based upon the City's current level of service as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Johnson
also provided the pros and cons of leaving or staying with the MVTA.
Mr. Johnson stated that at the MVTA Board meeting on February 11, 2009, the board
passed a motion unanimously that directed their staff to immediately begin plans to change
Rosemount's express routes, construct a park and ride facility in Rosemount and place
appropriate signage for the park and ride location. He added that he believed it was the
intention that all three items should occur in 2009.
Mayor Droste stated that Rosemount is uniquely positioned because of having the refinery
and the open space to the east. He provided information about the financial issues the
MVTA faces. Based upon the MVTA meeting held on March 11, he believes the board was
in agreement with the issues the City presented. He added that with the commitment
provided by the MVTA it was in the City's best interest to remain in the MVTA.
Council Member Weisensel suggested having a community task force that could provide
additional input to address the issues. He added that making better decisions with rider
input could help drive the ridership and enhance the partnership with the City and the
MVTA. Mayor Droste stated that in 2006 open houses were held to comment on the transit
study. City Engineer Brotzler added that in addition to the open houses related to the
comprehensive plan a task force did meet three or four times to discuss transit. Mr.
Weisnesel stated that there was a great effort put into the transit plan and it should be
continually reviewed with the citizens. He thought it was important to engage the citizens in
the process.
Council Member Bills was concerned with the geography of Rosemount and questioned how
the City could obtain better service. He suggested that the City could design a plan that
ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING PROCEEDINGS
FEBRUARY 12, 2009
would better serve the residents that commute from Rosemount. Mayor Droste stated that
the frequency of buses is determined upon the amount of ridership.
Council Member Weisensel questioned if the City was missing an opportunity to provide
more service, flexibility and finding a niche service by not leaving the MVTA. Council
Member Shoe - Corrigan stated that there was dysfunction with the system as a whole not just
in the local district. She questioned what the plan was for district service with Rosemount
being on the edge of the service area. She added that Rosemount could end up being a
larger city than Eagan or Apple Valley when UMore develops. While she was happy to hear
that the MVTA was being responsive she expressed concern about the Met Council possibly
overturning the decisions made last night. Mr. Johnson did not think it was likely for the
Met Council to overturn any specific decision, but rather they might ask the MVTA to find
something to cut somewhere in the five city system. He added that the possibility for
funding the transit station did not include any reimbursement for land and he was not sure if
the land would be transferred or leased. He noted that staff would work on a plan.
Mayor Droste stated there was previous service to DCTC but it wasn't efficient as there was
no housing around the college and the college was closed in the summers. He added that
residents want a dependent system. Council Member Shoe - Corrigan stated the need for
transit at the college could be addressed by the task force. She added there was room for
improvement within the current system and task force could provide the City Council with
feedback. City Administrator Johnson noted there were many good reasons to have a task
force for the following reasons: 1) to receive feedback from the actual ridership; 2) staff and
residents could attend the met council transit meetings; 3) the group could evaluate the
special areas of needs such as the college; and 4) the group could use the transit plan brought
forward last July and keep looking ahead for future transit.
Council Member Shoe - Corrigan stated that a transit station would help with the local
economic development. She questioned how the City would build ridership and meet all the
concerns of the residents. She added that the City did not have to belong to the MVTA to
continue the current system and was concerned that until the City threatened to leave
withdraw it had been a non - voice. Council Member -Shoe Corrigan stated that the City has
always been on the edge of a larger district with no routes and for the past 18 years the City
was an after thought.
Council Member DeBettignies stated he was not happy with the amount of money the City
has spent over the years to have nothing relevant happen within the community. He was
please that the MVTA has stepped up and listened to the concerns. He suggested have a
circular route in Rosemount to allow more flexibility to the riders and increase the ridership.
Mayor Droste stated that the City could not dictate where a flex route would be located. He
added that with the funding issues it was very difficult to make plans with how the system is
structured today.
Council Member Bills stated that the geography of Rosemount going to cause funding issues
with Rosemount routes being the first to be cut. He stated that Rosemount would be back
to where they are today if routes would be cut. Mr. Johnson stated that Peter Bell with the
ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING PROCEEDINGS
FEBRUARY 12, 2009
Met Council made it very clear that operating transit is a first priority more than building
facilities or funding other programs. He added that Mr. Bell plans to use stimulus dollars to
keep transit moving forward.
Mr. Johnson addressed Council Member Bills earlier question about what was in store for
Rosemount based upon the population and geography. He stated that the City was
challenged because of the location and its ridership. The focus needs to remove barriers
such as express buses going more directly. He stated it was not a reality to get more service
then what is currently provided but to make what is there better. Council Member Bills
stated he wasn't sure it made sense to stay in the MVTA. Mr. Johnson pointed out that
doing an opt -out on our own will have challenges.
Dakota County Commissioner Branning provided the history of other cities doing an opt -
out. Mr. Branning stated he wanted Rosemount to remain in the MVTA. He added that he
wanted to see what has been presented and voted on at the MVTA meeting upheld and
implemented in the 2009 calendar year. Council Member Shoe - Corrigan stated she wanted
Rosemount included in the system as a whole and in a manner that is proper for the
residents and ridership. Council Member DeBettignies stated the City needs equity and to be
more vocal moving forward. Council Member Shoe - Corrigan expressed frustration that
Farmington and Lakeville do not pay in to the system but receive a benefit. She added that
if the City Council believes the motions at the MVTA board meeting stating they will move
forward in Rosemount she would give the MVTA another year. Council Member Bills
stated he was advocating for what's best in the short and long term of the community.
Motion by DeBettignies. Second by Droste.
Motion to continue membership in MVTA.
Council Member Bills stated he has a great belief in City staff and that with local control the
City could provide service to more than 26 people. Council Member Shoe - Corrigan agreed.
Council Member Weisensel stated that the reasons to leave the MVTA are very compelling.
Mr. Johnson stated it was a positive choice either way.
Ayes: DeBettignies, Shoe - Corrigan, Droste
Nays: Weisensel, Bills. Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council and upon a motion by
Droste, second by DeBettignies, the special meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
%-,a,- ROSEMOUNT
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Special Meeting February 12, 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM: Consider notice to terminate joint powers
agreement with MVTA at the end of 2009
AGENDA SECTION:
PREPARED BY: Dwight Johnson, City Administrator
AGENDA NO.
ATTACHMENTS: Four transit use studies; MVTA packet
info; Met Council budget memo
APPROVED BY:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve a motion to continue membership in MVTA.
BACKGROUND
The Council discussed the possible termination of the joint powers agreement with the Minnesota Valley
Transit Authority (MVTA) on February 3`d. Final action was postponed to this meeting to allow the
MVTA Board to respond to the discussion on February 3`d. The deadline for serving notice to leave the
MVTA effective next January is February 15`h. This memo provides some updated information acquired
since the February 3`d meeting.
FINANCIAL ESTIMATES
Staff has had further conversations with both the Met Council and MVTA during the last week to clarify
the financial estimates of revenues and expenditures if we leave the MVTA, based upon our current level
of service:
Expenditures: Two large express buses to Minneapolis
Small flex route bus
Administration, scheduling, reports,
customer service, etc
Total
Revenue Motor Vehicle Sales Tax allocation
Fares @25% of route cost
Federal funds /grants
Total
Amount available for other services and facilities
$204,000
60,000
60,000
$324,000
$622,000
66,000
$688,000+
$364,000+
While the estimates look favorable, this should not be interpreted to mean that we get only $324,000 of
service from MVTA. One survey by the Met Council showed that 208 Rosemount residents used MVTA
transit facilities outside of Rosemount. Depending on the average subsidy rate for these trips, the indirect
benefit to Rosemount residents may be considerably higher than the sum of the service costs shown
above.
DISCUSSION OF PROS and CONS
Reasons to leave MVTA
• Potentially more service could be provided for Rosemount residents without raising taxes
• We could have more flexibility in the type of service we wish to provide
• If we contract with a larger agency for service, we could combine efficiency of operations with
more local control of the service level.
• With local control, we are more likely to take a real interest in transit and incorporate transit
discussions into all of our other City services and developments.
• We may be able to find a successful niche of service not currently provided by MVTA
• There have been questions about the ability and desire of the MVTA to provide rational,
equitable, and well planned service for all members
Reasons to stay with MVTA
• We may not be large enough on our own to provide efficient service with reasonable subsidies
• Our chances of working with new partners such as Farmington are unclear because the other
surrounding non MVTA communities do not have opt -out status.
• We may have less flexibility that we desire on our own because Met Council would still be able
to veto routes and services that are inefficient.
• There is no reason to believe we will be any more successful with capital grants on our own.
• The City currently has no transit operation expertise and would have to quickly gear up to
establish this capability. either by contract or hiring of part time staff.
• Staying with MVTA may be our fastest way to receive capital dollars if they are willing to use
some of their fund balance.
ACTION OF THE MVTA BOARD ON FEBRUARY 11th
The MVTA Board met on February 11`h and considered the issues raised by Rosemount. The Board
passed a motion unanimously that directed their staff to change our express routes so that our service does
not go through 157`h street station, construct a park and ride facility in Rosemount, and place appropriate
signage for our park and ride location. These items were directed to occur during 2009.
IF WE WERE TO LEAVE MVTA
The following are some suggested steps that we should take if we leave MVTA.
1. Form a committee to decide our future needs. The committee could include residents who ride
the buses, up to two councilmembers and others.
2. Begin immediately to contract or hire part -time staff to develop in -house capability in transit
operations. We would probably temporarily need some council contingency money to do this in
2009, although ultimately MVST funds can pay for this.
3. Develop a transit operating budget for the remainder of 2009 and 2010.
4. Develop a cash flow analysis for receipt of funds and projected expenditures
5. Begin planning and engineering studies and grant applications for any capital facilities such as a
park and ride lot.
6. Examine our options for contracting for service delivery in 2010.
KA
RECOMMENDATION
Since the MVTA Board unanimously agreed to address all of current concerns by the end of this year, and
since it would be at least 2011 or 2012 before we could get funding for a Park and Ride facility on our own
assuming that our grant request would be approved, and because the routing problems for our express
buses will be substantially improved, staff recommends that we continue our membership in the MVTA.
With the changes proposed by the MVTA Board, we believe that we will have the transit service in
Rosemount that we need and can support for now and that it will be service that will be much more
visible, convenient, and efficient which will allow future growth in transit service.
3
a)
cr-
i
Y
Lm
a
0
u
Ln
L
a,
Y
c
0
v
o
0
0
o
o\
o
0
\ o
N
m
O
_
m
In
U1
m
N
Nr-I
N O
0
w
0
c
v
U
L
Q.
H
L
w
Ln
Y
C
0
y
m
ko
m
00
.-r
m
m
O
N
Z Z
0
Y
a1
u
L
v
a
'U
m
Q
0
^
�
V1
O�
Q 0 Ln
V
LD
r\
'-i
m
lD
m
r,
LD
N^
m
z
.m-r
lD
'u
m
LL
N
L
Qi
H
0
r-
o0
0
0
m
m
m
co
Q"
>
vi
m
r-
m
m
00
r-
m
1O
m
Z 0
m
m
,n
u
m
LL
L
aJ
H
D
Y
C
ri
r-
r-
Ln
�
m
Ln
W
W
N
r-I
to
D
0
N
N
r•I
ci
N
N
E
w
N
0
fY
L
v
C
Y
�
v
O
V
Y
C:
o
Y
CO
j
v�
V)
N
C
O
E
N
t"r
H
0
`n
n
.c
O
o
u
v
>
-
Y
m
m+
bo
U
QJ
R
aJ
2
Y
H
C
C
Y
L—
"6
N
O
v
3
v
m_
L
ui
:3
Y
u 0
E
Q
IA
In
-r-
C
-O
le
L
Q.
Y
U
L
bD
L
t\
Vf
m
aJ C
m
a
00
m
m
o
ui
o
0)
CL
Q
a
N
m
m
w
LL-I
w
m
0 C7
A 4- )C -C-4 -� 0,
2008 Annual
Regional Park - and -Ride System
Survey Report
Prepared for
Metropolitan Council
Metro Transit
Minnesota Valley Transit Authority
SouthWest Transit
Maple Grove Transit
Plymouth Metrolink
Prior Lake Transit
Shakopee Area Transit
Northstar Corridor Development Authority
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Prepared by
Metro Transit
Engineering & Facilities
Facilities Planning
Updated December 12, 2008
Executive Summary
Each fall for the past seven consecutive years, regional transit authorities and Mn /DOT
have conducted a survey of the Twin Cities regional park- and -ride and park- and -pool
system in order to track growth at each facility and across the region. Beginning in 2004,
surveys conducted in even - numbered years have also included a comprehensive license
plate survey of each vehicle parked in every park- and - ride /pool facility. In odd - numbered
years, license plates are collected only at new or expanded facilities. License plate data is
used to obtain the home origin of each user.
Vehicle counts and user home origin data are invaluable. Annual vehicle counts provide a
snapshot of the system as well as a way to chart system growth. License plate surveys
provide data needed to create maps of user home origins. These maps help delineate
unique park- and - ride /pool market areas and assist in locating new facilities.
Since 1999, the regional park- and -ride system has grown from approximately 12,000
spaces and 6,000 users to approximately 25,700 spaces and 18,300 users. Usage since 2004
has been irregular. As a result of the summer 2005 fuel price spike, usage grew by an
unprecedented 22 percent between 2004 and 2005. From 2005 to 2006, system usage
grew by only 6 percent, largely because the system lacked necessary capacity. Between
2006 and 2007 system usage grew by 9 percent, aided by an increase in capacity, as well as
increased ridership following the August I -35W bridge collapse.
In the last 12 months, the park- and -ride system has gained approximately 2,050 spaces of
capacity and about 1,150 users. From 2007 to 2008, system usage increased by 6.7 percent.
The current economic slowdown and drop in fuel prices, coupled with the rebuilding of the
I -35W bridge, appear to have partially curbed the surge in usage observed during the
previous year.
The system continues to draw a significant number of users from well beyond the transit
taxing district —and some from beyond even the boundary of the 19- county metro area.
The map on the following page shows the home locations of park- and - ride /pool users
observed in this year's license plate survey.
c
c
1:
v
E�
W
V)
)
Q�
CJ�
r•�
V
ffC�
�-1
P1
�1
coCD
0
N
I
. �.t «' {S• •J•�t.' 't '
• .L Jr�.�` � Imo• P ` • �• A "�.
• . 1' •'
• r
;t n ±.�+ {�•;�e•• , •;� O
CIA
e p
• i!''� • • rs•` Grp l 't' •r• •r '
O r .• j� �. `�\ it *r ' y •;"t . • :.�i �' , i� ,.•rr .'r ri• O
•, ..`••rte" _'••!3. S• "�•• t� • ?•• I -
cc
0
0
N
0
z
al
0
U
J
w
L
O
y
o L
N
0
N
0
a
III
Ll
�
N
O
L
0
O
41
N
N
Ln
E
+�-I
Ln
m
m
00
cu
Ln
C
ro
Y
a
m
lT
Q)
Ln
:D
°
O
a
C
m
Y
a
°
d
ro
`
C
ro
a
a
m
3
an
m
N
, ,
V
Ln
p
an
_
�
—
C
co
Q
O
v
C
:3
O
U
rp
Q
O
7
O
U
>
o
C
ru
m
B
Ln
v
>
C
U
O
Q
• r
;t n ±.�+ {�•;�e•• , •;� O
CIA
e p
• i!''� • • rs•` Grp l 't' •r• •r '
O r .• j� �. `�\ it *r ' y •;"t . • :.�i �' , i� ,.•rr .'r ri• O
•, ..`••rte" _'••!3. S• "�•• t� • ?•• I -
cc
0
0
N
0
z
al
0
U
J
w
L
O
y
o L
N
0
N
0
System Survey
The 2008 Annual Regional Park - and -Ride System Survey provides a comprehensive vehicle
count for the regional park- and - ride /pool system for the seventh time since 1999.
For the fourth time in the past decade, a comprehensive license plate survey of the regional
park- and - ride /pool system was completed. License plate surveys are conducted on a bi-
yearly basis as part of the System Survey process. The last comprehensive license plate
survey was conducted in September 2006, with a comprehensive vehicle count conducted
in September — October 2007.
Data collection
In a collaborative effort, staff from state, county, and regional agencies recorded the license
plates of every vehicle parked at every park- and -ride and park- and -pool serving the Twin
Cities metropolitan area. License plate data was collected during three survey periods:
• Tuesday, September 23— Thursday, September 25 (primary dates)
• Tuesday, September 30— Thursday, October 2
• Tuesday, October 7— Wednesday, October 8
The majority of plates (77 percent) were recorded during the first survey period, with the
remaining plates collected during the secondary collection periods'.
Survey staff also returned a Facility Attributes Form for each facility opened since the 2007
System Survey, detailing the capacity and amenities associated with each new facility.
Data processing
Between Thursday, October 2 and Friday, October 17, Metro Transit staff ran over 19,000
license plate numbers through secure web -based connections to the Minnesota
Department of Motor Vehicle Services (MnDVS) database to acquire vehicle registrants'
street address, city /township and zip code.
Wisconsin plates were recorded for approximately 600 vehicles in the system. These
records were sent to WisDOT to acquire registrant address information.
Upon completion of address acquisition, Facilities Planning staff geocoded the home origins
of approximately 17,400 system users between Friday, October 17 and Friday, October 24.
The geocoding success rate was extremely high; staff was able to locate and map 93.6
percent of all users [Table 1].
1 One facility (T508) was surveyed outside the designated survey dates on Tuesday, October 21.
Table 1: User home origins geocoding status.
User location status Count % of total
Mapped
17,845
93.3%
Address could not be mapped
636
3.3%
DVS record not on file
336
1.8%
Out -of -state plate
156
0.8%
No plate on vehicle
69
0.4%
Motorcycle plate
18
0.1%
Plate not recorded'
68
0.4%
Grand Total 19,128 100.0%
Regional System Profile
The facilities and capacity of the Twin Cities regional park- and -ride system are
continuously in flux as new facilities are opened, underutilized facilities are closed,
facilities are temporarily closed for expansions, and temporary facilities are opened during
expansions or until permanent facilities can be constructed.
The overall usage of the regional park- and - ride /pool system has grown continuously since
the early 1970s ranging from a typical annual growth of 4 -7 percent in the early 2000s to
an unprecedented growth of over 20 percent between 2004 (pre -$3 /gallon gasoline) and
2005 (post -$3 /gallon gasoline). Between 2006 and 2007, regional park- and -ride usage
climbed more than 9 percent, gaining approximately 1,600 new users.
Regional park- and -ride system usage increased by 6.7 percent over the past 12 months,
gaining approximately 1,150 users [Table 2]. The current economic slowdown and drop in
fuel prices, coupled with the rebuilding of the I -35W bridge appear to have partially curbed
the surge in usage observed during the previous year. During the same time period, park -
and -pool usage grew by a staggering 30 percent, from 610 users in the 2007 survey to
nearly 800 users in 2008.
Table 2: 2007 -2008 regional system growth by provider.
Provider
Facilities
2008
Capacity
Usage
%Utilized
2007
Usage
2007 -2008
Change %Change
Metro Transit
76
15,220
10,899
72%
10,200
699
7%
MVTA
9
4,400
3,279
75%
3,221
58
2%
SouthWest
9
1,982
1,492
75%
1,370
122
9%
Maple Grove
5
1,601
1,353
85%
1,216
137
11%
NCDA /City of Ramsey
3
1,397
758
54%
628
130
21%
Plymouth
3
485
279
58%
317
-38
-12%
Shakooee /Prior Lake
3
707
275
39%
229
46
20%
Park - and -Ride Total
108
25,792
18,335
71%
17,181
1,154
6.7%
Mn /DOT
30
1,282
479
37%
354
125
35%
WisDOT
12
600
314
52%
256
58
23%
Park - and -Pool Total
42
1,882
793
42%
610
183
30%
Note: The 2008 System Survey is the first to include hide - and -ride users parking on local streets adjacent to
LRT facilities without official park- and - rides. Future System Surveys will continue to incorporate these users
into usage totals and year -to -year changes. To avoid artificial inflation of system growth figures, 2007 usage
totals were updated to include estimates of hide - and -ride users observed near survey dates.
The majority of park- and -ride users (over 70 percent) reside within the transit taxing
district (TTD). An additional 14 percent of users originate from the seven - county area but
outside the TTD. Approximately 8.5 percent of users live in the collar counties surrounding
the seven - county metro; another 1 percent of users come from outside the 19- county
metro area. Origin is unknown for the remaining 6.4 percent of users.
Capacity changes
Between the 2007 and 2008 survey dates, a total of 2,169 spaces were added to the
regional park- and -ride system [Table 3]. Eleven new facilities were added to the system,
two facilities underwent expansion, and six facilities were closed. During the past 12
months, capacity grew by a much smaller margin than in the previous year, which saw the
addition of nearly 5,000 spaces. System capacity was fairly consistent from 2004 to 2006,
jumped considerably in 2007, and leveled off in 2008 [Figure 1].
Table 3: 2007 -2008 system expansion and contraction.
New capacity since 2007 System Survey
Gained
Closed since 2007 System Survey
Lost
28th Ave Station (reopened)
1,443
Wayzata West Middle School
(20)
SouthWest Village
450
Target Chaska
(100)
Forest Lake
308
Shepherd of the Lake Lutheran Church
(111)
Running Aces
300
Four Seasons Mall
(119)
East Creek Station
250
29th & Como (1 -35W bridge temporary)
(550)
1 -35W & Industrial Blvd (1 -35W bridge)
226
28th Ave Station (temporary relocation)
(791)
Cub Foods - Plymouth
120
Church of the Nazarene (reopened)
115
Safe Haven
110
Rosemount Community Center
75
Mound Transit Center (reopened)
50
Apple Valley Transit Station (expansion)
300
South Bloomington Transit Center (expansion)
113
SPACES GAINED
3,860
SPACES LOST
(1,691)
NET CHANGE IN CAPACITY
Top Gainers and Losers
Top gainers2
The top 10 gainers in the park- and -ride system account for 25 percent of system capacity
and 27 percent of overall system usage [Table 4]. In contrast, the top 10 gaining facilities in
2007 represented 19 percent and 22 percent of overall system capacity and usage,
respectively. Average usage at the system's top ten gaining facilities increased by 17
percent from 2007 to 2008, down from a 25 percent increase in usage from 2006 to 2007.
2 The following facilities were excluded from the top gainers analysis: all LRT facilities, East Creek Station
(new facility), SouthWest Village (new facility), Cub Foods — Plymouth (new facility), Running Aces (new
facility), Forest Lake Transit Center (new facility), Church of the Nazarene (reopened and expanded), I -35W &
Industrial Blvd (new facility).
Q
Q
C6
O
O
N
N
bD
RS
N
b
C
R
.0
O.
fd
v
d
a�
y
y
C
O
v
CG
rl
61
L
V.
O o O O O O O
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
O ul O O V1
m N N
zo
O
O
N
n
O
O
N
I
O
O
N
O
O
N
V
O
O
N
M
O
O
N
N
O
O N
N
Qj
>- C
O
dy
-I y
C) r t
N C L
N
a� m
W
'O S
p C v
O u
O r _
N O U
c c
> v
> >
tA _m
rn E w
rn d m
N
vTi �
It
Table 4: Top 10 gaining facilities, 2007 -2008.
Top losers3
The top 10 losers in the park- and -ride system represent 16 percent of system capacity and
15 percent of overall system usage [Table 5]. In contrast, the top 10 losing facilities in 2007
accounted for 11 percent and 12 percent of overall system capacity and usage, respectively.
Average usage at the system's top 10 losing facilities decreased by 12 percent from 2007 to
2008 and by 10 percent between 2006 and 2007.
Table 5: Top 10 losing facilities, 2007 -2008.
2008 2007 2007 -2008
Facility
Capacity
2008
2007
2007 -2008
Facility
Capacity
Usage
Usage
Change
%Change
Maple Grove Transit Station
924
1,010
903
107
12%
Apple Valley Transit Station
768
750
649
101
16%
Riverdale
455
374
283
91
32%
Foley Blvd
1,243
1,148
1,073
75
7%
Southbridge Crossing
515
234
162
72
44%
Ramsey Town Center
603
153
90
63
70%
Cottage Grove
525
284
224
60
27%
Northtown Transit Center
366
279
227
52
23%
Co Rd 73 & 1 -394 South
732
319
269
50
19%
Maplewood Mall Transit Center
420
469
420
49
12%
Total
6,551
5,020
4,300
720
17%
Top losers3
The top 10 losers in the park- and -ride system represent 16 percent of system capacity and
15 percent of overall system usage [Table 5]. In contrast, the top 10 losing facilities in 2007
accounted for 11 percent and 12 percent of overall system capacity and usage, respectively.
Average usage at the system's top 10 losing facilities decreased by 12 percent from 2007 to
2008 and by 10 percent between 2006 and 2007.
Table 5: Top 10 losing facilities, 2007 -2008.
2008 2007 2007 -2008
Facility
Capacity
Usage
Usage
Change
%Change
Knox Avenue at Best Buy
525
52
150
(98)
-65%
Burnsville Transit Station
1,376
1,305
1,387
(82)
-6%
Park Place & 1 -394
55
10
44
(34)
-77%
Eagan Transit Station
679
380
409
(29)
-7%
Rosedale Transit Center
375
345
372
(27)
-7%
St Croix Valley Recreation Center
100
40
65
(25)
-38%
171st Ave & Tyler St
339
231
255
(24)
-9%
65th Ave & Brooklyn Blvd
239
161
182
(21)
-12%
Co Rd 73 & 1 -394 North
288
148
165
(17)
-10%
St. Genevieve Church
50
23
38
(15)
-39%
Total 4,026 2,695 3,067 (372) -12%
3 The following facilities were excluded from the top losers analysis: all LRT facilities, Market Blvd & Pauley
Dr (impacted by new nearby facility), 73rd Ave & Hwy 252 (Church of the Nazarene reopened), Southwest
Station (reliever facilities opened), 1-35W & 95th Avenue (reliever facilities opened),
Hiawatha Line LRT Facilities
Overall usage at Hiawatha Line park- and -ride facilities increased 4 percent from 2007 to
2008, growing by 150 users [Table 6]. The expanded 1,443 -space 281h Avenue Station
facility opened in July 2008, providing 652 additional spaces of capacity at the south end of
the line and relieving the near - capacity conditions at both Fort Snelling Station facilities. As
a result, usage decreased at both Fort Snelling Station lots. Usage also decreased
considerably at Lake Street /Midtown Station West.
Table 6: Hiawatha Line facilities capacity and usage.
2008 2007 2007 -2008
Facility
Capacity
Usage
Usage
Change
% Change
28th Ave Station
1,443
778
575
203
35%
Fort Snelling Station North
398
361
382
(21)
-5%
Fort Snelling Station South
675
618
673
(55)
-8%
Lake St /Midtown Station West
163
231
208
23
11%
Park - and -Ride Total
2,679
1,988
1,838
150
8%
38th Street Station Hide- and -Ride
0
62
94
(32)
-34%
46th Street Station Hide- and -Ride
0
138
121
17
14%
50th Street Station Hide - and -Ride
0
186
145
41
28%
Hide- and -Ride Total 0 386 360 26 7%
The 2008 System Survey is the first to include hide - and -ride users parking on local streets
surrounding 381h Street, 461h Street, and 501h Street /Minnehaha Park Stations. 386 users
were observed at the three stations. Hide - and -ride survey counts were measured against
historical Metro Transit data collected from 2005 -2007.
October 2008 Fare Increase
A twenty -five cent increase in regional transit fares went into effect on October 1, 2008.
Because the majority of data collection was conducted prior to this date, the increase is
unlikely to affect the results of the 2008 survey.
Also on October 1, the one -way fare on Route 288 to Forest Lake and Running Aces rose an
additional $1.75 to $4.75. The distance surcharge appears to have shifted some Route 288
customers back to 951h Avenue, where the distance surcharge is not applied. In mid -
October, 975 users were observed at 95th Avenue —an increase of 22 users over survey
counts conducted prior to the fare increase. During the same period, Route 288 ridership
dropped considerably. Metro Transit will continue to monitor the demand for spaces at
9501 Avenue in light of the temporary capacity reduction that will accompany upcoming
construction to expand the facility.
1 -35W Bridge Collapse Effects
The August 1, 2007 collapse of the I -35W bridge did not contribute to usage growth to the
extent it did in the previous year. The bridge reopened on September 18, 2008, one week
before the System Survey was conducted. From 2007 to 2008, park- and -rides affected by
the bridge collapse — generally those facilities north of I -94 and either east or just west of I-
35W with service to Minneapolis4— showed a 5.3 percent increase in usage, compared to a
system -wide increase of 6.3 percent. Usage at facilities not affected by the bridge collapse
increased by 8.5 percent. In contrast, usage at bridge collapse- affected facilities climbed
14.9 percent from 2006 to 2007, compared to an overall system growth rate of 10.3
percent, while usage at facilities not affected by the collapse grew by 11 percent.
The 2006 -2007 surge resulted in large part from a lack of capacity at facilities affected by
the bridge collapse. After construction of additional capacity, this pent -up demand was
released, and usage patterns at those facilities began to more closely mirror regional
trends.
Two temporary facilities were opened in late 2007 in response to the bridge collapse. A
550 -space facility opened at 29th and Como in September 2007 and closed in September
2008, prior to the System Survey. In addition, a 226 -space facility opened at I -35W and
Industrial Blvd in December 2007. This facility is included in the 2008 System Survey but
closed shortly after survey completion.
The Challenge: Keeping Pace with Demand
In August 2005, gas prices in the Twin Cities reached $3.00 for the first time in history.
Three years later, in June of 2008, the average price per gallon topped $4.00. This
unparalleled increase in fuel prices resulted in an equally unprecedented surge in park -
and -ride usage that has continued to grow despite falling gas prices in the second half of
2008 [Figure 2].
4 Includes Running Aces (opened May 2008), Forest Lake (opened January 2008),1 -35W & Industrial Blvd
(opened December 2007), Maplewood Mall Transit Center, Hwy 610 & Noble, Grace Church, Skating Center,
Hwy 61 & Co Rd C, 1 -35W & Co Rd H, Hmong Alliance Church, Como & Eustis, Rosedale Transit Center, I -35W
& 95th Ave, and 29th Ave & Como (closed September 2008).
Figure 2: 2002 -2008 historical gas prices and park- and -ride usage.
20,000
® Park - and -Ride Usage
w Average Twin Cities Gas Price
($ /ga I )
15,000
0
cp
r�
$4.00
$3.50
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
The system currently has several facilities near capacity (85 -95 percent full), at capacity
(95 -100 percent full), or over capacity (over 100 percent full). Of the region's 108 facilities,
38 currently fall into one of these three categories [Table 7]. The capacity issues at facilities
shown in bold are currently in various stages of being addressed and are expected to be
resolved within 6 years.
Table 7: Regional facilities near, at, or over capacity.
Near Capacity
At Capacity
Over Capacity
85 -95% full
95 -100% full
Over 100% full.
Burnsville Transit Station
Apple Valley Transit Station
Maple Grove Transit Station
1 -35W & 95th Ave
Navarre Center
Maplewood Mall Transit Center
Rosedale Transit Center
Hwy 610 & Noble
Christ Episcopal Church
Como & Eustis
7th Avenue & Garfield
Hwy 61 & Lower Afton Rd
Foley Blvd
Salem Covenant Church
Guardian Angels Catholic Church
Louisiana Ave Transit Center
Hwy 61 & Co Rd C
Wal -Mart (1 -94 & Co Rd 30)
Blackhawk
Plymouth Road Transit Center
Hwy 100 & Duluth
Cub Foods - Plymouth
Palomino Hills
Woodbury Theatre
St Andrew Lutheran Church
Excelsior City Hall
General Mills Blvd & 1 -394
Skating Center
Mermaid Supper Club
Shoreview Community Center
Woodbury Lutheran Church
Messiah United Methodist Church
Fort Snelling Station North
West River Rd & 117th Ave
Fort Snelling Station South
Lake St /Midtown Station West
Southwest Station
8
00
O
O
N
I
0)
rn
rn
4-J
a�
CA
_x
Z �
w
a �
CL
Q U
cc
Q
m
U
�U
LL
f6
�L
:o
0
a
n
l
„rg n _ P m8e xM Vo
lo
s met nnm $ rs �° �g nn n
s8;m2
S .M:S „Sangrm8e 8 go R�m° T6° S� n” " x. n °°
s�m.°xs „Srop g "smg3 �g �ag g .��s �a�m °msx�� n" m. n 000
m�tim � .. .,. ^' =3g .• .. $��, m n mm .. ..n�3$ &< nn 38I�..n
goo ”
0 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 o o o 0 o o o o o o e o y o o o o o o o o o o o o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 o 0 o n N o 0 0 0 0
mm�xem 6�ma rX: namA<N mm3m5PnSnRm �'d°. �g�73i±
rS�a��mO� ��3RSmSeRSrye °� ° "m� „° lo, nn gSTT.
2 2
2 2 2 u u u u u 2 i 2> 2 u
tl .� .� tl .� C -Ti G�� C G G" a a a a tl� C tl .� tl G� �C � G � G Ti � G C L O � G ti C C .� tl G G C G G •. •••• G �� L � tl � " GG
a �aM a� a sms �sgwmsa as aa� ssaaae�s m x� ales- - -- - -
g00... = -
oga=
p o u E E E E E E o - -_ E E ` o E r °-
<� < < °mmmmmmmmmmmmm mm��u�55u�°� �WWWWWWWWW- �.LL�3�� F�fs�sssfF<�f�ff
is
i 5 3 5 a' W E a _ o b - s
..'a °i =NnN z °��nmua inuim'�3ai�L�".. a�.a um W u Ns °H.. W LL.. .mui�i o�m."+u3iiii "_ ni�u °ii
iiiii c n a i s e Q o o Q o 0 0 o y o
20 iif
min asT „s4smxrv�x� ^$�xsm4a�a�ssa��ss
�� C��CCQ°0:' "'CC�CCCCCCC CCC.�CCC CC CC ACC �CCCCCCCCC I
r
i;
I=
t
Y
i�
13
S
t�
mo
n n n bn m N °sa.rv.g mRgga s Tam
„ «Sr «S rvbn m N ry R'^w °sS.N:g aRgB�N A �R^
N
O
+y m amwS S w mnb m �m Onm ..+.�`$SnnO.'+in�^x m ma
w.m+�ry bm nm m .+ ry g n m ti N n w O N w wmi89i� °88 N u4 9iS
a
NO �j`OAVKi, nainNOA n'?OFCO b �`bjDOn ne N
mnmb..mbm ., N ry �ss�.RSo�: .,4 xs4° nsaasssax�
" G L L"" E YE G G G G E C o° Ti t G G G Ti <G L L G a z z +' z z Y. G G G G L$ a _ G C G C L G G G
os
Y
..o
iiiiiii o "8s'ia> "dam a- :m = =emNSSS�bb » »mmN53'333333333
E � 1
- °o °mom = �- u V `•'O_ zg:
m3 o oSi= c
2
E u
+"SN iOi3o i�u °N33,�33335u33 0
0 0 0 0 � o 0 0 o E E E E o o u =�� 5 -` -" 5 o z= t b t :: � b_ t .• : � � ��' t° s' o o a a
�&Nea^ omN NmmP$g« « «NO
i
AIi z
.+ m mbm b non bv+
a
m
n
e
n ..rvmT T m Nm b non b.n
m
m
�
o
M
v ti ti , ry r AA-
a
N
A
b
V1 .� .+ w m .� .� m �+ v .-i .�
n •� w •�
N If1
m O
'Al
O
-- - ,- ry
b x m
n_ 0 0 m
m« m a x x r o
q
N N
m
c
u 3
ic
2.
=
E E o o
d
W b„ x�3iEz °.6 m °3�..�u "Namam
c `ia�3
a
As
"
o s
o O
a' m
m pm�n�w�n
ua
m�av�awem��oi �°
s
sos0000ssssssssssssssssosssoss
000 0000000 00000 0000 „
o88sssgoss8o
d5s
02- 05- 07;02:25PM;
innesota V
lOJJ'111 (VJU r', l'� /�J
W. S. B. % # 2/ 2
A le Va11ev Transit Center- 635 Total Riders includes overflow�T"�'�1/Y'�
City Park -Rido Percent* * �'`!
User Origins
A le Valle 166 26.
* Outside Transit Taxing District
** Percentage of known addresses (excludes unknown)
Burnsville Transit Station- 1 344 users includes overflow
City
Park -Ride
User 06 gin
Percent **
Burnsville
483
7
Parnun on*
144
23.2
Lakeville*
134
21.6
Rosemount
83
13.4
All other- within TTD
50
8.1
All other- outside TTD*
43
6.9
Unknown Origins
15
N/A
Farmington*
4
0.3
Total- inside TTD
299
48.2
Total- outside TTD
321
51.8
* Outside Transit Taxing District
** Percentage of known addresses (excludes unknown)
Burnsville Transit Station- 1 344 users includes overflow
City
Park -Ride
User 06 gin
Percent **
Burnsville
483
37.3
Lakeville*
185
14.3
Savage
171
13,2
Shako ee
90
6.9
Prior Lake
84
6.5
Apple Valle
34
2.6
Eagan
30
2.3
Farmington*
4
0.3
Rosemount
5
0.4
All other- inside TTD
80
6,2
All other- outside-TTD*
130
10.0
Unknown
48
NIA
Total- inside TTD
977
75.4
Total- outside TTD
319
24.6
1 � r
ti
k
* Outside Transit Taxing District
** Percentage of known addresses (excludes unknown) i
157th St park - and - Ride -17 Total Users (September 26,2 06)
Fannin on
9 users
Rosemount
5 users
Lakeville
2 users
Other*
1 use
Outside TTD
11 of 17 Users 65 percent
* 1 user origin in Edina, MN, assumed as unregistered relocation (location unknown)
TOTAL P,02
I!,
2008 Annual Regional Park - and -Ride System Survey
Minnesota Valley Transit Authority Facilities
V
f y
1 c•
• jf
sa cv i
f
• i • _ � i i C � ai i
• i i
i Vii• i� j i i
y i • � E ij
• ►4 'cT'` ` i i = a'� Cyr
i !<?
i i ` �• �
s i • i �. `i :, i
i
J i ii i• ��}� =G6 Qi C y
i a
i j • Ci IF
i N i i v
i C
i
i
i • j `•v
i
•j• i •
i
i
i
i
C 1
• is
i
X
i i v vv�
0 1 2 4 6 8 • i
v �
Miles •� N
i
Park - and -Ride (Users)
Co Rd 42 & Huntington (79)
Interstate Highway
157th St Station (33)
�� Eagan Transit Station (380)
Transit Taxing District
Apple Valley Transit Station (750)
Q Heart of the City (99)
7- County Metro Area
Blackhawk (330)
Palomino Hills (297)
Burnsville Transit Station (1,305)
Rosemount Community Center (6)
19- County Metro Area
Q 1VletroTransit .l�,b;ut:apalitut Council
t
December 2008
Data collected 9/23/08 - 10/6/08
.r
TO: MVTA Board DATE: February 10, 2009
FROM: Beverley Miller
RE: City of Rosemount Request
Requested Action
Provide direction to staff considering a request by the City of Rosemount that MVTA purchase
land to construct a transit station and provide express service within the city limits.
Background
The City of Rosemount is considering their future participation as a member of our JPA and
whether to exercise their option to "opt -out" of MVTA and instead establish a Rosemount transit
service. For some time, Rosemount has expressed dissatisfaction with the level of service
MVTA provides inside the city limits coupled with the fact that the other JPA cities have
facilities and another ex- officio city has recently secured facilities as well.
To respond in 2008, MVTA added new service despite challenges from the Met Council that
overturned our adopted budget. Stating that MVTA's use of fund balance to operate expanded
service was not sustainable; MVTA did not receive buses heretofore earmarked for MVTA,
based on a regional CMAC award. Later the Met Council agreed to provide used (10 year old)
buses to operate the service. The service originates at the Rosemount Community Center and
then stops at the 157th Street Station in Apple Valley to provide additional service to an
underutilized lot. Since the September startup, approximately 6 riders board the buses (2 peak
hour trips each direction) in Rosemount and 28 rider's board in Apple Valley. While the buses
are not full, they are showing growth and promise given the short period of time they have been
operating (4 months).
MVTA has submitted grant applications for a station in downtown Rosemount in the 2007, 2005
and 2003 regional grant solicitations. Despite our efforts we have not received an award like we
have with the other MVTA cities. The next solicitation for federal funding is in April and we
plan to submit another application for a transit station in Rosemount.
Impact
The capital and operating funding process charts give the background to how funding is
calculated and distributed based on the source and governance authority. I reviewed this
information with the Rosemount City Council at their meeting of February 3`d. Suffice it to say
that MVTA has no tax or levy authority, and relies on grants for capital projects. By State
Statute, the MVTA receives 1.6% of the base MVST funds to operate service. We are eligible to
receive discretionary funds from the Met Council.
With the change from property -tax based funding, which was reliable and stable, to MUST there
is a large swing in receipts which makes estimating revenues difficult. We are waiting for the
February forecast which will undoubtedly change our revenue estimations downward. We have
City of Rosemount Request
Page 2
been told by Met Council that the suburban providers will share in the regional deficit. Based on
these factors, today we do not have a complete financial picture for 2009 and beyond. Staff has
budgeted conservatively because of the volatility and uncertainty with MVST funding. Since
2004, MVST funding has steadily declined.
MVTA has by policy a fund balance and reserve contingency budget which has been growing.
The Board can authorize additional spending drawing down on these reserves. For 2009/2010,
budget scenarios have been prepared for discussion purposes.
Should Rosemount decide to give notice and withdraw from MVTA, the financial impact would
be approximately $622,810 and whatever discretionary funds are available and distributed.
Recommendation
Review information and provide staff direction.
O y
O
Q O
'y V
C Cl)
CO
(4 O
I-
r N
O--
U) O
d O
C O
= N
6E:
O
U)
O
L C
C
O i)
E Z
� O
II C)
>+ N
U Co
O
LL
Q O
F U
> C
O
� C
Q)
=3 O
C N
C
m CK
m O L
C a)
Li Li
+-
00
O C) 0 0 0
0 CD O
CO O O Cf)
co
co
O
N
N
O
q
C
Ln
In O (D O C)
LO LO
Ln O N
0
N
co
O
ti
(D
O
Ln
In M Ln Ln M
I` M
co O
N
O
N
NT
N
W .a
O
O M M 1-: ('')
�- CU
CO O CO
00
C0
(D
f-
r
cI
O
et
� r LO Ln r
CO O
O co 00
r
C)
00
M
G0
C)
O (U O
CO
CD r
N r
r co r
LO
't
N
ti
O0
O
41
CD Ly0 j
L(i
Ln
r
N CO
r
U
Z
i
O
O C) 0 0 0
O ti O
ti O O O
O
1-
O
M
Ln
N�
O
y
H C
ti
fl- 0 0 0 0
O M
CO) O r
r
r
O
co
Ln
f--
C`')
O (i
N
N O O O N
N LO
LO O (D
to
(0
O
M
00
'
W .a
O N O M
LO f-
ti O ti
ti
(D
O
M
00
r%- r M LO r
N O
00 O
O
m
O
O
co
cr o
O d 0
qt r
N LO
LO NT
qt
co
(D
O)
f`
Cn
CD m j
Ln
Ln
(D
(D
N
(D
M
O
'et
N m O
r
`-
Z
+-
00
00 O O O O
O CO 00
It O M ('')
CO
00
O
N
O
CO
N
V)
C U
LO
LO O CO 0 0
LO M LO
r O r N
M
LO
O
It
N
I,
y O LL
In
LO M Ln Ln M
I` M ti
�- O d r
LO
07
O
O
LO
d'
3
W '6
O
O M M 1 M
� CC Ln
� O CO N
-I
O
(fl
Ln
ti
N
V
00
�
't r U) LO r
CO O (D
ti CO O 00
r
co
00
N
N
O
O d C)
CD
CD r
N r 00
C) M LO r
r
m
N
M
M
O
U)
LQ j
Ln
LO
f` r
C
r
LO
P.
r
t`
(D
N m
r
r
Z
0
0 0 0 0 0
0 ti Ln
N O M O
M
LO
O
LO
LO
Ocy�
y
C V
h
I` O O O O
O M M
ti O r r
N
CD
O
M
LO
N
LO
D
y O LL
N
N O O O N
N LO CD
r O d CD
O
CD
O
M
00
Ln
CD
(fl O N O M
LO ti d7
ti O (fl ti
d'
N
O
r-
.4
f-
O
ti
ti r LO LO r
N co 'ct
M O CA
O
't
O
U°)
CO
N
O y 0
r
N LO N
It 't LO
O
r
CO
f-
M
LO
N
p m j
LO
LO
CO �:
C6
1-
Lij
(fl
r
00
t�
N m
r
r
Z
+-'
co
00 O O O O
O CD fl-
M O It M
00
O
O
r
�
co
r
= y
LO
LO O CD O (A
LO LO ti
c U O Cl) N
LO
C)
O
O
co
00
LO
O li
LO
LO M LO LO CO)
t` M (D
O W O Cl r
0
M
O
(C
Ln
m
W .a
O
O M M � C
�- 00 ti
(D Z O LO 00
' t
N
(D
M
M
()
co
It
14- `- LO Ln `-
CO O 00
(A O M f` 00
0)
CO
00
N
N
0)
O d O
y
CD
(0 r
N r�t
LO e M (0 r
r
-
co
N
CD
O
Cl)
�
N
V-
O CC j
Lf)
Ln
ti N
O C)
r
O
r
I�
r
CO
ti
>
N m Z
C)
>
r
O
O 0 0 0 0
0 f-- r
f-- O H O
LO
N
C)
CD
Ln
f--
OR
O
C y
�
fl- O O O O
O M 00
r V O CM r�t
M
O
co
LO
N
LO
O
O
N
N G O O N
N LO r
ti LL O (A O
lO
f`
O
N
N
LO
W -0
(D
(fl O N O M
LO ti CO
M, O Ln I�-
M
O
O
r-
It
co
O
ti
f` r LO LO r
N co CD
LO O O r-
00
M
O
co
N
O d 0
It
r
N L() d'
O rt (D
O
co
CO
O
O y
O R j
LO
Ln
(fl N
O o
LO
O
I
CO
CO
N m O
O
O
`-
r
Z
r-
CD y
I
It O) C) 0 0
C) (D M
O O ti N
O)
N
M
r
Ln
U?
�
00
00 d' O O O
� O CO
00 �. O r M
�
CD
LO
O
LO
CD
44 N LL
00
00 M O O N
LO r I'-
M V) O N co
OO
N
LO
N
CO
LO
CL
co
C)
C) d' N O
CO ti
LO O Lf) O
Ln
cr
.11
Lr
�i
)
O
CO
CD CO LO O r
N C C
f` O O �
(D
Cl)
N
00
CO
)
N
�t O LO
co 0 It f-
N
r
CO
CO
h
O
Q d .O
Ln
LO
t` N
O o
r
fl
CO
r
M
I`
O LL
f`
O
O
to
U
�
C
C
f6
_
O C
C-
O
m
O
C
O
U r L
O
N
Q
C (II U
C
U
x
(D
d O- (0
LL
C
O
W
7
O �
cc
U
N
O
c
LL
O CL Its
O
m
g
.0
'(n o
LO
y U Q o
a)
-o
m-
a>i
y
C
m
OL
x
> J C
~ C
C
"
O
O
m
m CU >, N
O
(n > m�
>
U)
O
Ln
7
O
O
C
= 0
CO L_
>>
N (� O
(U
O
C
LL
F...
U (��E
C
L_
N
LL
czs U LL O
Lo CO co
(o m Cn U
L
(m
ca
o
a
-a
C
d
o>1
o >>
o
O
o
x
_0
(u
C
O
❑
F- U)
H
f— O
r
w
Q
m
W
2
O
U)
O
L C
C
O i)
E Z
� O
II C)
>+ N
U Co
O
LL
Q O
F U
> C
O
� C
Q)
=3 O
C N
C
m CK
m O L
C a)
Li Li
Metropolitan Council
2001 — 2008 Regional Bonding Authorization for Transit
(Regional Transit Capital — RTC)
2001 $45 million
2002 $54 million
2003 $45 million
2004 Nothing
2005 $64 million
2006 $32.8 million
2007 Nothing
2008 $66.6 million
Page 1 of 2
Beverley Miller
From: Kooistra, Wes [Wes.Kooistra @metc.state.mn.us]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 4:22 PM
To: 'Isimich @swtransit.org'; Beverley Miller; 'mopatz @ci.maple- g rove. mn.us;
'shellekson @ci.plymouth.mn.us "; 'jkansier @cityofpriorlake.com';
'mleek @ci.shakopee.mn.us'; 'jclark @messerlikramer.com'; 'jclark @mandklaw.com'
Cc: Bell, Peter; Weaver, Tom; McCarthy, Arlene; Lamb, Brian; Schetnan, Judd; Vennewitz,
Amy; Pfeiffer, Sean; Dornfeld, Steven
Subject: RE: Retional Transit Deficit Advisory Follow Up
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
All,
We had previously committed to keep you up to date on events and changes that influence the regional transit
budget.
On Tuesday, January 27, Governor Pawlenty released his budget to the legislature. This budget does not
recommend any reductions to the transit general fund appropriations for the SFY 2010 -11 biennium. This is good
news; however, we did receive notice from the Minnesota Management and Budget Agency (formally the State
Department of Finance) that $600,000 would be unalloted from the transit SFY 2009 state general fund
appropriation for the metropolitan region.
The metropolitan region's transit deficit is approximately $10.7 million for SFY 2009 and $45 million for the SFY
2010 -11 biennium. We will again revise our deficit projections after the February forecast of Motor Vehicle Sales
Tax collections. In addition, the Governor may need to revise his state general fund recommendations once the
February Forecast is released. The final state budget is not expected to be settled until May or June.
We will continue these efforts to keep you informed.
Wes
From: Kooistra, Wes
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 5:21 PM
To: 'Isimich @swtransit.org'; 'bmiller @mvta.com'; 'mopatz @ci.maple- g rove. mn.us';
' shelleckson @ci.plymouth.mn.us'; 'jkansier @cityofpriorlake.com'; 'mleek @ci.shakopee.mn.us';
'jclark @messerlikramer.com'; 'jclark @mandklaw.com'
Cc: Bell, Peter; Weaver, Tom; McCarthy, Arlene; Lamb, Brian; Schetnan, Judd; Vennewitz, Amy; Pfeiffer, Sean;
Dornfeld, Steven
Subject: Retional Transit Deficit Advisory
All,
We have received a request from MVTA regarding the Council's state budget deficit calculation and the specific
amount of deficit for each entity (i.e. Metro Transit bus, Metro Transit Rail, Metro Mobility, Suburban Transit
Providers, etc.). In response to this request, the attached memo provides the context and basis for our deficit
projections, a reiteration of the previously shared principles for addressing the deficit challenge, and suggestions
for scenario planning.
Please understand that we are not yet able to identify a specific share of the total projected deficit that will be
allocated to individual transit entities. The current deficit projections will likely change over the coming months.
The Governor will release his budget on January 27. Then, adjustments to the deficit projections will be
necessary after the February Forecast, and once again when the global budget solution is agreed to and finalized
by the Governor and 2009 Legislature. When the final deficit figures are known, we will consider the allocation
2/10/2009
Page 2 of 2
of the deficit based upon the provisions of the legislature and with consideration to the principles we have
discussed. The current regional transit deficit is serious, and unless it is significantly mitigated in the coming
months, solutions will require a whole cloth evaluation of regional resources and services.
Our commitment is to continue to communicate changes and possibilities as these become known. Thank you for
your patience.
Wes Kooistra
Chief Financial Officer
Metropolitan Council
2/10/2009
itMetropolitan Council
Building communities that work
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 21, 2009
To: Suburban Transit Providers
From: Wes Kooistra, Chief Financial Officer
Subject: State Budget Deficit Information
This memo is in response to a request for information from MVTA regarding the Council's state budget deficit
calculation and the specific amount of deficit for each entity (i.e. Metro Transit bus, Metro Transit Rail, Metro
Mobility, Suburban Transit Providers, etc.).
The information below indicates how the original transit budget deficit was calculated prior to the December
release of the most recent MVST forecast. Please note that this budget information is framed in state fiscal year
(SFY) amounts.
Pre - November Forecast Budget Status
❖ SFY 2010 -11 Total Transit Deficit= $37.7 M
❖ SFY 2010 -11 Rail Deficit= $19.3 M
❖ $5.2 M Hiawatha
❖ $14.1 M Northstar
❖ Represents 50% State Share
SFY 2010 -11 Bus Deficit= $18.4 M
$15.5 M to Maintain Current Service
❖ $2.9 M for Committed Expansion
The SFY 2010 -11 rail deficit represents the unfunded portion of the 50% state share for Hiawatha and Northstar
operations.
With respect to the SFY 2010 -11 bus deficit, the $15.5 M deficit to maintain bus services was calculated among
the various entities as follows: $11. 8 M Metro Transit bus, $1.5 M Metro Mobility, $.9 M MTS contracted routes
and other, and $1.3 M Suburban Transit Providers. The $2.9 M deficit for committed expansion includes operating
funding for UPA service (including service on Cedar and I -35W to Lakeville), Forest Lake express service, and
matching funds for a Metro Transit CMAQ grant to operate service on I -94E.
When the new forecast was released in early December, the Council simply added the forecasted reduction to
MVST collections to this previously calculated deficit. The additional deficit amounts that result from the most
recent forecast reductions to MVST collections are as follows.
November 2008 MVST Forecast Reductions
$11 M down for SFY 2009
$23 M down for SFY 2010 -11 biennium
$10M down for SFY 2012 -13 biennium
With the new forecast the total deficit for the SFY 2010 -1 lbiennium is approximately $61 million. When the SFY
2009 MVST reduction of $11 million is added, the three year deficit (SFY 2009 -11) grows to approximately $72
million. There will be some offsets to this deficit amount as a result of continuing adjustments to fuel price and
inflation projections, but the final SFY 2009 -11 deficit figures are still anticipated to be in the $55 million to $60
million range.
The Council has committed to addressing our forecasted SFY 2009 deficit by using internal measures such as the
drawing down of reserves and operating efficiencies. We would suggest that the STPs also anticipate handling any
SFY09 deficit internally as additional state funding will not likely be available. At the meeting on January 6th
between the Council and STP representatives, Alan Morris handed out a spreadsheet showing the revenues each
STP should anticipate for the remainder of FY09. Please let me know if you require another copy of this
spreadsheet.
As Council staff indicated at the joint meeting, the transit deficits should be viewed as regional deficits which will
require regional solutions. The budget principles which we established and reviewed on January 6`h are shown
below.
1. Budget shortfalls and proposed solutions should be viewed as regional challenges that apply to all
providers.
2. First priority will be to maintain existing service levels that meet regional performance standards.
3. Rail operations should not be funded at the expense of existing bus operations.
4. The application of solutions and the distribution of deficits will be fairly shared among providers, i.e.
solutions such as fare increases, service reductions and use of reserves should be applied equitably.
5. Information will be shared and open communication will be maintained to build trust among parties and to
ensure that informed and equitable decisions are made.
No determination can be made at this time on the shares of the total deficit that will be allocated to individual
entities. Eventually, this will need to be addressed based upon the final actions of the legislature and in
consideration of the principles listed above. It is clear that we will not know the final SFY 2010 -11 transit budget
until the conclusion of the 2009 Legislative Session. The 2009 February Forecast will include a new MVST
forecast and will be the basis for the Governor's and the Legislature's final budget position. Typically the final
agreement is reached in May.
For these reasons scenario planning is critical. Because we will be seeking regional solutions and equity among all
parties, providers should not assume that final deficits will be allocated to the transit entities in the same
proportions as current funding distribution patterns.
As we stressed at the joint meeting, for budget planning purposes, Suburban Transit Providers should consider,
among a range of budget scenarios, the worse case possibility of receiving only base MVST allocations without
discretionary General Fund and MVST allocations. Again, this is recommended in consideration of the need for
broad based scenario planning. We certainly do not know what will be required and are hopeful that other transit
solutions are made available. Still, in this current economic environment, it is prudent budget planning to consider
this possibility.
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or require additional information
Cc: Peter Bell Brian Lamb
Judd Schetnan Tom Weaver
Arlene McCarthy
4ROSEMOUNT
ADMINISTRATION
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Mayor and Council Members
From: Dwight Johnsorml ity Administrator
Date: February 12, 2009
Subject: Council Agenda Update
1. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: OLD BUSINESS
Consider notice to Minnesota Valley Transit Authority to withdraw from
membership at the end of 2009. Attached is the meeting summary of the MVTA Board of
Director's regular meeting held on February 11, 2009.
DATE:
February 11, 2009
TO:
Board Members unable to attend February 11 Special MVTA Board
meeting /TWGs
FROM:
MVTA
RE:
Meeting Summary
Enclosed please find a meeting summary of the MVTA February 11, 2009 regular meeting of the MVTA
Board of Directors. Materials distributed at the meeting are posted on the web -site.
1. The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. by Chair Elizabeth Kautz.
2. One item was added to the agenda regarding the payment for the Rosemount study. Agenda was then
approved.
3. Beverley Miller reviewed the request to award a contract for the new Apple Valley Transit Station.
There were 11 bidders and prices came in very conservative. Estimates were in excess of
$15,000,000 for the bid and two bid alternates. Low bid came from AP Midwest LLC at a cost of
$12,053,066. Motion by Will Branning and seconded by Jon Ulrich to award the contract subject to
approval of DBE documentation by the Met Council. A roll -call vote ensued and the motion carried
unanimously.
4. The next item was the scoping proposal for the build -out of space at the Burnsville Bus Garage to
accommodate the simulator recently acquired as part of the MVTA's UPA Agreement. The three
contractors all participated in a meeting with the vendor of the simulator at the space to be renovated.
Staff recommends award to Bonestroo, believing that they fully understand the scope of the project.
Motion by William Droste and seconded by Jon Ulrich to approve an agreement with Bonestroo for
this project in the amount of $1640 (to be credited back against future design costs). A roll -call vote
ensued and the motion carried unanimously.
5. The next item was a discussion of the situation with the City of Rosemount and a discussion of
funding for the MVTA. Beverley Miller led the Board through the prepared materials, highlighting
some background on the situation and seeking direction from the Board on how to proceed. She
reviewed the service that was added to Rosemount in 2008, presented an explanation of the capital
funding process and how MVTA facilities have been funded (no MVTA dollars have been expended).
She reviewed how much the Met Council has had authority to levy since 2001 and noted that the first
priority for these funds is to make local match payments for projects that have been awarded federal
dollars (CMAQ, etc.). She reviewed the Operating Funding process, providing a history of how the
MVTA is funded. She noted that with the shortfall this year there are likely to be cuts and she shared
an e-mail from the Met Council in which it indicates that the Suburban Transit Providers would share
in the cuts. At this point, no one is sure what that means. She noted that while it is true that the
MVTA's fund balance has grown in the past couple of years, scenarios play out that show use of the
fund balance to cover operations in 2009 and 2010. There was some discussion of the impact of a
fare increase, but it was noted by Mike Abegg that that would be minimal in 2009 and would have
more impact in 2010.
(;.)Chair Elizabeth Kautz then asked Commissioner Bill Droste what specifics he would like from the
MVTA Board to continue as a member of the Joint Powers Agreement. Droste noted three items:
Service from Rosemount that travels directly north (rather than traveling southwest before
heading north).
Page 2
• Signage alerting residents of the park & ride capacity at the Rosemount Community Center
• Figure out how to have a park & ride in the City of Rosemount because until that is done, it will
be hard to build the ridership.
The Board expressed interest in working with the City of Rosemount and having the city continue as
a partner. Motion by Will Branning and seconded by Jon Ulrich to direct staff to work with the
Rosemount staff to develop a plan to accommodate the three priorities of the City of Rosemount and
report back to the MVTA Board in the March -April time frame. It was noted that if a decision is
made in March, changes could be implemented as soon as the June service change (set for May 31).
Chair Kautz called on Tom Pepper, as our finance technical work group member, to work with this
team to ensure that the budget works. A roll -call vote ensued and the motion carried unanimously.
7. Beverley Miller asked the Board to officially approve the funding of the Rosemount study in the
amount of $23,564. A roll -call vote ensued and the motion carried unanimously.
8. Jane Victorey then asked that the payment of the Dan Patch study come before the Board again at the
next meeting. A roll -call vote ensued and the motion carried unamously.
9. Eagan Mayor Mike Maguire and city administrator Tom Hedges were in attendance and were offered
an opportunity to speak. They indicated that they were pleased with their participation on the MVTA
and they believe that Rosemount is a good partner and should stay in the system. They both noted
that they were at the meeting primarily to observe and learn more about the MVTA.
10. The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Next Regular Meeting Scheduled for February 25 at 4:30 p.m.
Q
N
O
Y' -. �.. LA x � 35' �' 'si A t n, � `s,�y�"�7 r s. -v��-•��, -"p v - -•!'�
n� O �
I I I I I I OCU n Q
o O C o O
CD
� cu
Q. cu W
433
Wca�3M
I
G
1-33W
J
S 3Q�ti"nOC� Yw N
3
f I {
Ap r+a ■tee •a 3 � � n � ,�, � •
i
Y
ti
•'e
y
�3
J
1
�1
I
G
1-33W
J
S 3Q�ti"nOC� Yw N
3
f I {
Ap r+a ■tee •a 3 � � n � ,�, � •
i
0
s
0
c
2
Vol
or
33
'Cc
Mv.o�
M VIG q o
AP,
�� 0