HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Consider notice to terminate Joint Powers Agreement with MVTA at the end of 2009DISCUSSION 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 11
The MVTA Board met on February 11` 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 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.
2
RECOMME NDATION
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
in
1 071
N
3
Y
C
3
O
E
O/ o c o c 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O
o m r'. O Q1 r1) L Q1 N N ,-r N o
m <-r
CI
0
4,
C
u
u
1 i17/
a
N
L
0
N
0
Y
3
0 D O O
E c'* c' O O O O Q Q
w en 1 1 m oo rn m w O N Z z
0
CC
4
C
0
U
0
a
u
M
RI 00 N m N u) Q1 m o0 O O
U lD ,-1 LO O n N i!1 Q t!'f
n m m 1 .0 ,_.4 N N m Z LLD
u
to
Li-
N
L
0
VI
o 1 00 0^ 0 01 m Q) Q N
Y n ul N N m m m Q1 m m Z o
a 1 l! 1
u
M
LL
N
I-
0
N
p
M
<•1
.m-1 N LAD t.0 NI U 1
N
vt
CC
Park and -Ride
Apple Valley Transit Station
Palomino Hiiis
28th Ave Station
Blackhawk
Burnsville Transit Station
Eagan Transit Station
Fort Snelling Station
157th St Station
Rosemount Community Center
Heart of the City
Other Facilities (1 each)
Grand Total
City of Rosemount- Park-and-Ride Users
t
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 bj only 6 percent, largely because the system lacked necessary capacity. Between
2006 avid 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 sy:;tem 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.
0
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 ,ddress, 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 11.
1 One facility (T508) was surveyed outside the designated survey dates on Tuesday, October 21.
1
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.
2008 2007 2007 -2008
Provider Facilities Capacity Usage %Utilized Usage 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%
Shakopee /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.
2
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
28th Ave Station (reopened)
SouthWest Village
Forest Lake
Running Aces
East Creek Station
I -35W Industrial Blvd (I 35W bridge)
Cub Foods Plymouth
Church of the Nazarene (reopened)
Safe Haven
Rosemount Community Center
Mound Transit Center (reopened)
Apple Valley Transit Station (expansion)
South Bloomington Transit Center (expansion)
SPACES GAINED
NET CHANGE IN CAPACITY
Top Gainers and Losers
Gained
1,443
450
308
300
250
226
120
115
110
75
50
300
113
3,860
2,169
Top goiners
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 rig presented 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 fac ility), 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).
3
Closed since 2007 System Survey
Wayzata West Middle School
Target Chaska
Shepherd of the Lake Lutheran Church
Four Seasons Mall
29th Como (I -35W bridge temporary)
28th Ave Station (temporary relocation)
Lost
(20)
(100)
(111)
(119)
(550)
(791)
SPACES LOST (1,691)
C
O
tao
a1
CL
V1
m
m
U
ro
V
a)
00
ea
H
O
O
Cr;"
'-I
M1
N
N
N
O 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 O O 0 O
O iii O V1 O U1
CO N N %-i '-4
0
CO
a)
a
0)
OJ
0)
C
t
V
N
u
7
C
O
0
CU
1
7
E
a
N
0)
U
CO
Cl
L
(0
ro
(1.1
v
7
C
0)
7
OD
0)
ro
00
N
D
1
Table 4: Top 10 gaining facilities, 2007 -2008.
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%
Southbr dge 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 losers
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.
Facility Capacity Usage Usage Change Change
Knox Avenue at Best Buy 525 52 150 (98) -65%
Burnsvi le 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 &I-394 North 288 148 165 (17) -10%
St. Genevieve Church 50 23 38 (15) -39%
Total 4,026 2,695 3,067 (372) -12%
The following facilities were excluded from the top losers analysis: all LRT facilities, Market Blvd Pauley
Dr (impacted by new nearby facility), 73 Ave Hwy 252 (Church of the Nazarene reopened), SouthWest
Station (reliever facilities opened), I -35W 95th Avenue (reliever facilities opened),
2008 2007 2007 -2008
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 28th 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 38th Street, 46th Street, and 50th 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 95th 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
95th Avenue in light of the temporary capacity reduction that will accompany upcoming
construction to expand the facility.
6
I -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 wth service to Minneapolis 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 $4.00. This
unparalleled increase in fuel prices resulted in an equally unprecedented surge in park
and -ride usage that has continued to grow despite falling gas prices in the second half of
2008 [Figure 2].
4 Includes Running Aces (opened May 2008), Forest Lake (opened January 2008), I -35W Industrial Blvd
(opened December 2007), Maplewood Mall Transit Center, Hwy 610 Noble, Grace Church, Skating Center,
Hwy 61 Co Rd C, I -35W Co Rd H, Hmong Alliance Church, Como Eustis, Rosedale Transit Center, I -35W
95th Ave, and 29th Ave Como (closed September 2008).
Figure 2: 2002 -2008 historical gas prices and park- and -ride usage.
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
MN Park and -Ride Usage
Average Twin Cities Gas Price
($/gal)
Near Capacity
85 -95% full
Burnsville Transit Station
I -35W 95th Ave
Rosedale Transit Center
Como Eustis
Foley Blvd
Louisiana Ave Transit Center
Blackhawk
Cub Foods Plymouth
St Andrew Lutheran Church
General Mills Blvd 1 -394
Mermaid Supper Club
Woodbury Lutheran Church
Fort Snelling Station North
Fort Snelling Station South
4 4
2002 2003 2004
8
11
2005 2006 2007 2008
At Capacity
95 -100% full
Apple Valley Transit Station
Navarre Center
Hwy 610 Noble
7th Avenue Garfield
Salem Covenant Church
Hwy 61 Co Rd C
Plymouth Road Transit Center
Palomino Hills
$4.00
$3.50
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
0.00
The system currently has several facilities near capacity (85 -95 percent full), at capacity
(95 -100 percent full), or over capacity (over 100 percent full). Of the region's 108 facilities,
38 currently fall into one of these three categories [Table 7]. The capacity issues at facilities
shown in bold are currently in various stages of being addressed and are expected to be
resolved within 6 years.
Table 7: Regional facilities near, at, or over capacity.
Over Capacity
Over 100% full
Maple Grove Transit Station
Maplewood Mall Transit Center
Christ Episcopal Church
Hwy 61 Lower Afton Rd
Guardian Angels Catholic Church
WaI -Mart (1 -94 Co Rd 30)
Hwy 100 Duluth
Woodbury Theatre
Excelsior City Hall
Skating Center
Shoreview Community Center
Messiah United Methodist Church
West River Rd 117th Ave
Lake St /Midtown Station West
SouthWest Station
0
Cl,
9 m m nnm .2g n 2 8 n .122T2 n R2«
„r8 ogln FiT RTT m.. m m §o 2 3.% n RT..
o nnm n R1.,, r8 M<R 2§§ 2 9 «2..2
8 F12 -g n F19 8 a 9 9 m 49 2 8 42-..
m mmm§ «m n n8�tme8 9 E1;1 9 9 ..92412 R n
nun$ +m .1'9 ..8 m m Rn««« *'.1,k m 282,4 2 g..
m m „�Sm 8 �8Mm° �8�0
mR a m m� R «2 2
Unm rA °m m8 nnm ^RRm ..m ':.'F 2 F
m°mm2„82mg1 ^U:, °R°mo mm 2 9 oo
mmnm N *.A 8 nnm m n nm 99 9 m'Y«'m-1
R,m¢mRS„gr ^gti ^g<.. 08 R 8 °n 12 P «M 9 2n2 2 ma..n 000
m8 gE..WF m 8 m6RRnHm mm 9 2n mnF.a.¢..«.. 800
000800��00000�0000000000v0R�8000000000000m000000000000000000 rN000000
mmn n ndggbno ,Y,gmgi? 8 8 88 xe�4g8 88888888888888888rc'^m'48888 ¢¢¢emo
m..mmnITT 4326RTm rte„ 12mP2 «mmImTT M,32 „nRa TR°°.. «ARP.. zzzrmm
98 8 n mm m. m nm6 n m P R,°..n..n O0 n
2. 2 2 2 t y a s z Z 2 2
TiG G GG G G G L "aa G-Y. T. GGC-Y.Y.Yi?.G'"'"G. a G ii Ti G G G£' "G L ""o Ti” T.G
Q 6 Q Q 6 6 6 6 a" 6 6 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 6 Q
P8PMAR; ;a PAMAP8MI8888 88mm88m8mMAAgIAMPAEUA m 80 m
E E E E E E o a m; o u u n n n n n n n a e
m m m m m m m° m m m m m m v" fi `u u u u u u u u W w W w W w w w LL LL LL LL LL i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
u C q c 24 n c 11'€ N= 11111-1
i R a L a n 77j2;0. i. i 3 r o x'
.12 m i m S u e L c' n o o n a a E
z 3 Va E�.ac `a u
12 ..a a z »nNZ� „mum nmz8990 5cW mLLaumwa� W LL 88 .225 99
3 i r i' o o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 u u o 0 0 0 o a o 0 0
`o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i t t o o o
'555 55 5
aim m3Eo&�APPIM M CC T AvA 8 8
8 L
E.
2 :L; .22-..A2v4 2.222 4
E::=P4A2 A2 2 A A E 2AF;282244 28122 2
n44A0g 2?? A 5 il ,To .2F..10.12..z 2N2220 0 T;'.0i
m
r gl I° mARAw2A,22 20gp,, ;1 ATI
F42',4iA2 A2A 2 A A ,r'2 Rm 2nEp—rim4§ a4,9§§. 8 FISJ!
F.s„nmsnmn 2 n§n Fr. sint.9.7m:i.n412,5;g§.§.:4n 2 t
E 22.A22A22 F; A§A iim gnE9.7m.Ing§§7.'n 2 .YA
En mE-m;4:1 m n 1 -6, i. ,1,. e9E2....545,,,53 AU2
pl,:l s„nmmn m Fl n§n E2 RAE22274AA§2gA8§22 2?,,Wi
il zg... 7,4*magrA:1-4,T:11mwa-0;7:=InEam: 4
nn
I4144g4440.4 4 4gg4g4g4444g44444ggeggg gigggg"
22,'22A822AA2 A A0.4.2!:24A412424ARAXSAR 80ISH 8 8 g
RE-11t 1 ;02:1.R2APAT—A2°.22.='4 2.22AFIE2i
FiAR8i,IA220, 'PlAA §§22228!1
ffliiiiMiP;OWAMMIMMMIMW;;;;;Iiiii
t
PL
iiigNigNiiM10.41111311F0
tg it=
'i.a p, 3V
ffliPLUk111
Midipin,W;
.0...0...
222222272EMEe
M.MMIHMMPVMHIMMVORMP5.5V.IVOP
in
11
2 -5
Piing
.f.fff
52225522 2555552 ,252222222
3
2
3
8
3
3
3
3
EE
2
2
8
3
2
2
a
g
3
2008 Park-and-Pool Capacity and Usage
48 ELL
BIZ 689
EOZ TZ1'T
22g 2mm m
m
m tnm
2
11.2.7M
L4Z 16L
ZZS 99S'T
100 610
LSS 099'i
060 fOS
2g4224:1
Fig
rule
S
m m
r:A I
mn
*3 F422
OT9 SZL'T
950 LLS
m r
ti 3 ti m 4
T6T %Z4 E6L 288'i
8S %ZS 016 009
T519 Mn /DOT 1-94 Hwy 101 (Hennepin County) Rogers
T522 Mn /DOT 1 -35 Co Rd 22 Wyoming
T524 Mn /DOT Hwy 65 Co Rd 24 (Anoka Co) East Bethel
T520 Mn /nr1T i.
T525 WisDOT 494 Carmichael Rd (5t Croix Co) Hudson
T531 WisDOT Win 65 Wis 64 (5t Croix Co) 51 Croix Co
1553 WisDOT WIS 35 WIS 65 (St Croix Co) River Falls
1554 WisDOT US 63 WIS 64 (St Croix Co) New Richmond
T559 WisDOT Wis 65 Paperjack New Richmond
TSXXPrs WisDOT US 10 Pearl St Prescott
TSXXUT WisDOT USH 10 CTH CC (Pierce Co) Union Township
TSXXW WisDOT Wheatland Township Wheatland Township
WISCONSIN SUBTOTAL
PARK AND -POOL TOTAL 43 active facilities
a
g
3
2008 Park-and-Pool Capacity and Usage
City
Park -Ride
User Origins
Percent
Burnsville
483
37.3
Lakeville*
185
14.3
Savage
171
13.2
Saakopee
90
6.9
P.-ior Lake
84
6.5
Apple Valley
34
2.6
Eagan
30
2.3
l;arrnin on*
4
0.3
Rosemount
5
0.4
Ail other- inside TTD
80
6.2
All other- outside TTD*
130
10.0
Unknown
48
N/A
Total- inside TTD
977
75.4
Total- outside TTD
319
24.6
F• rmington
9 users
Rosemount
5 users
Lakeville
2 users
O:her*
1 user
Outside TTD
11 of 17 Users, 65 percent
City
Park -Ridc
User OriEins
Percent**
Apple Valley
166
26.7
P armin 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
Total- inside TTD
299
48.2
Total- outside TTD
321
51.8
02 05- 07;02:25PM;
Minnesota Valle Transit Authori Se
W. S, B.
A nle Valley Transit Center -635 Total Riders includes overflow)
Outside Transit Taxing District
Percentage of known addresses (excludes unknown)
Burnsville Transit Station users zLneludes overflow)
Outside Transit Taxing District
Percentage of known addresses (excludes unknown)
1.57 StPark -and- Ride -17 Total Users September 26 2006)
tember 26 2006 Park and Ride User
(OJJ'411 )k)
r. e d
2/ 2
1
'i e- 0111 -1 3
'l user origin in Edina, MN, assumed as unregistered relocation (location unknown
TOTAL P.02
2008 Annual Regional Park and -Ride System Survey A 44„IM4n.71
Minnesota Valley Transit Authority Facilities
Park and -Ride (Users)
157th St Station (33)
Apple Valley Transit Station (750)
Blackhawk (330i
0 Burnsville Transit Station (1,305)
0 MetroTransit Metropolitan Council
0
Co Rd 42 Huntington (79)
Eagan Transit Station (380)
Heart of the City (99)
Palomino Hills (297)
Rosemount Community Center (6)
Interstate Highway
Transit Taxing District
7- County Metro Area
19- County Metro Area
December 2008
Data collected 9/23/08 10/8/08
TO: MVTA Board
FROM: Beverley Miller
RE: City of Rosemount Request
DATE:February 10, 2009
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.
To responi 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 157 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).
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 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 MVST 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
.1-44 c-4
Background
The City cf 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.
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.
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.
cn
cts
ca
cNi
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
Beverley Miller
From: Kooistra, Wes [Wes.Kooistra @metc.state.mn.usj
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 4:22 PM
To: 'Isimich @swtransit.org'; Beverley Miller; 'mopatz ci.maple- grove.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 =lag: 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 o' 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 bienn um. 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
2/10/2009
Page 1 of 2
From: Kooistra, Wes
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 5:21 PM
To: 'Isimich @swtransit.org'; 'bmiller @mvta.com'; 'mopatz @ci.maple- grove.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 inc ividual 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
Wes Kooistra
Chief Financial Officer
Metropolitan Council
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.
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Metropolitan Council
It Building communities that work
January 21, 2009
Suburban Transit Providers
Wes Kooistra, Chief Financial Officer
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
$10 M down for SFY 2012 -13 biennium
rT —��C C hlpvtT 6
MEMORANDUM
With the new forecast the total deficit for the SFY 2010- 11biennium 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 6th 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
Judd Schetnan
Arlene McCarthy
Brian Lamb
Tom Weaver
ROSEMOUNT
ADMINISTRATION
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Mayor and Council Members
From: Dwight Johnson, City 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.
6. hair 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.
1 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.
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.
2_ lo
ATTACHMENTS: Four transit use studies; MVTA packet
info; Met Council budget memo
APPROVED BY:
i _I.,
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve a motion to continue membership in MVTA.
ROSEMOUNT
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Special Meeting February 12, 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
The Council discussed the possible termination of the joint powers agreement with the Minnesota Valley
Transit Authority (MVTA) on February 3` Final action was postponed to this meeting to allow the
MVTA Board to respond to the discussion on February 3` The deadline for serving notice to leave the
MVTA effective next January is February 15 This memo provides some updated information acquired
since the February 3rd 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 $204,000
Small flex route bus 60,000
Administration, scheduling, reports,
customer service, etc 60,000
Total $324,000
Revenue
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax allocation $622,000
Fares @25% of route cost 66,000
Federal funds /grants
Total $688,000+
Amount available for other services and facilities $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.