HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.b. Transit PlanAGENDA ITEM: Transit Plan
AGENDA SECTION:
PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, PE, City Engineer
AGENDA NO.
2B.
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Transit Plan
APPROVED BY: 10/
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion.
4 ROSEMOUNT
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Work Session: July 30, 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND:
Attached for Council review and discussion is a revised draft Transit Plan. The attached Plan has been
updated to address comments received at the May 14, 2008 City Council Work Session. Pending Council
review of this Plan, the draft Transit Plan will be added as an appendix to the draft Transportation Plan
with the 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Chuck Rickart will be in attendance at the meeting to provide an overview of the Plan and respond to
questions.
G: \ENGPROJ \ENG 0126 Transit Study \Transit Plan CWS7- 30- 08.doc
DRAFT
ROSEMOUNT TRANSIT PLAN
JULY 2008
Prepared by:
WSB Associates, Inc.
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
(763) 541 -4800
(763) 541 -1700 (Fax)
City of Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT July 2008
WSB Project No. 1556 -92
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 BACKGROUND DATA/ANALYSIS 6
2.1 Existing Service and Facilities 6
2.2 Dakota County Transit Plan (draft) 7
2.3 Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit 7
2.4 Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA) 8
2.5 Robert Street Corridor Transit Feasibility Study 9
2.6 2030 Transit Master Plan 9
2.7 Rosemount Transit Public Involvement 10
3.0 TRANSIT SERVICE ANALYSIS 12
3.1 Proposed Rosemount Depot Park- and -Ride, Fleet, and Service 12
3.2 Future Transit in Rosemount 13
3.3 Park and -Ride Design Considerations 17
3.4 Transit Oriented Development 19
4.0 TRANSIT FUNDING SOURCES 21
Figure 1 Metro Area Transit Service Areas
Figure 2 Park and -Ride Service Areas
Figure 3 Existing Regional Transit Service
'Figure 4 Existing Local Transit Service
Figure 5 Existing Transit Facilities
Figure 6 2030 Transitway System
Figure 7 Robert Street Corridor Study Area
Figure 8 Robert Street Corridor Study Long Term Vision
Figure 9 Rosemount 2030 Land Use Plan
Figure 10 Umore Park Area
Figure 11— Rosemount Future Park n Ride Locations
Appendix A Existing Transit Facility Details
Appendix B Urban Partnership Agreement Funding Information
Appendix C Counties Transit Improvement Board Joint Powers Agreement
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Background
The City of Rosemount is a rapidly growing community in Dakota County located
approximately 15 miles from downtown St. Paul and 20 miles from downtown Minneapolis. As
local and regional travel demand grows, congestion conditions worsen, and gas prices rise, the
City wishes make transit a convenient and viable alternative for its residents. The City also
intends to proactively plan and advocate for Park- and -Ride facilities that will benefit and
enhance the community.
This document will be included by reference into the Rosemount Transportation Plan, which, in
turn, will be referenced into the City of Rosemount 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update.
Currently, there are no transit facilities in the City of Rosemount. The primary issue surrounding
transit service or lack of transit service in the City is outlined below:
A. Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) service equity.
B. Transit service need.
C. Transit funding.
Each of these issues is discussed in detail below.
A. Minnesota Valley Transit Authority and Service Equity Concerns
In 1982, the state legislature gave cities in the Metropolitan Transit Taxing District area the
option of "opting out" of the Metropolitan Transit Commission (the forerunner of Metro Transit).
The issue that this legislation addressed was that a number of suburban communities were paying
substantial funding (raised through local property taxes) to support MTC operations, but were
not receiving corresponding service. With this 1982 legislation, funding was to continue to be
raised in the same manner for the Opt Out communities, but the majority of it was retained by
the cities to operate transit which best met their needs.
In response to this legislation, the Cities of Prior Lake, Savage, Burnsville, Apple Valley, Eagan,
and Rosemount opted out and joined to form the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA).
In 2004, the City of Prior Lake withdrew from MVTA. MVTA's service area, as well as Metro
Transit and the other opt out providers, is illustrated on Figured. MVTA's service has focused
on express service to downtown Minneapolis, and to a lesser degree to downtown St. Paul and
other employment centers. Park and -Ride facilities are a very important part of MVTA's
operations.
Rosemount has been a member of MVTA since its inception but has no transit facilities and only
one flex route bus. The City's position is that a transit facility within Rosemount and associated
MVTA service is needed and overdue. As stated in the MVTA's 2007 -2008 Strategic
Priorities, one of their core values as a provider is "Fairness and Equity" of service for its
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 1
member communities. A summary of payments that the City has made to MVTA over the past
five years is summarized in the table below.
Summary of Rosemount Payments to Transit Fund
Source: Metropolitan Council
Minnesota Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST) is a tax on all motor vehicles sold in the state of
Minnesota. Based on the location in which the vehicle is titled, statistics are drawn as to the
amount of motor vehicle sales tax that is paid by each community. The property tax payments to
MVTA are based on a percentage for each county. For Rosemount residents, this is between
2.5% and 3% of the property valuation. All of these monies are collected through the State of
Minnesota and distributed to each transit provider based on specific formulas.
All of the other MVTA cities have Park- and -Ride facilities and scheduled, fixed -route transit
service. By comparison, Rosemount has no Park- and -Ride facility, and only has Route 420
which provides flex route service during the a.m. and p.m. peak travel times. Rosemount has the
population base and has contributed to the budget where commuter express services and
permanent transit facilities should be provided in the community.
To compare what Rosemount residents contribute financially versus what the City has received
in service over the years, it is illustrative to evaluate costs associated with Route 420. This
service is analogous to paratransit service the Metropolitan Council contracts through Metro
Mobility and other operations. Typically, the Metropolitan Council pays approximately
$50/hour for this service. At this rate, Rosemount receives approximately $100,000 per year
worth of Route 420 service while expending almost $1 million per year for transit services.
While City residents can and do use the Park and -Ride facilities in other communities, these are
not as convenient to most residents as a strategic Rosemount location would be, and this raises
equity and fairness concerns relative to MVTA's service area and operations. A Park- and -Ride
facility would also relieve congested conditions at other MVTA facilities.
As of July 2008, the Metropolitan Council has reached an agreement with MVTA and the City to
establish a temporary Park and -Ride location within Rosemount and dedicate two buses to this
facility with service to downtown Minneapolis. This commuter service will provide two
northbound trips in the morning, and two southbound trips in the afternoon. As will be further
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 2
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Motor
Vehicle
Sales Tax
$684,496
$742,549
$736,382
$740,276
$778,843
Property
Taxes
$215,926
$245,841
$260,127
$315,631
$304,452
Total
$900,422
$988,390
$996,509
$1,055,907
$1,083,295
Portion of
MVTA total
Funding
7.3%
7.7%
8.1%
8.6%
9.2%
member communities. A summary of payments that the City has made to MVTA over the past
five years is summarized in the table below.
Summary of Rosemount Payments to Transit Fund
Source: Metropolitan Council
Minnesota Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST) is a tax on all motor vehicles sold in the state of
Minnesota. Based on the location in which the vehicle is titled, statistics are drawn as to the
amount of motor vehicle sales tax that is paid by each community. The property tax payments to
MVTA are based on a percentage for each county. For Rosemount residents, this is between
2.5% and 3% of the property valuation. All of these monies are collected through the State of
Minnesota and distributed to each transit provider based on specific formulas.
All of the other MVTA cities have Park- and -Ride facilities and scheduled, fixed -route transit
service. By comparison, Rosemount has no Park- and -Ride facility, and only has Route 420
which provides flex route service during the a.m. and p.m. peak travel times. Rosemount has the
population base and has contributed to the budget where commuter express services and
permanent transit facilities should be provided in the community.
To compare what Rosemount residents contribute financially versus what the City has received
in service over the years, it is illustrative to evaluate costs associated with Route 420. This
service is analogous to paratransit service the Metropolitan Council contracts through Metro
Mobility and other operations. Typically, the Metropolitan Council pays approximately
$50/hour for this service. At this rate, Rosemount receives approximately $100,000 per year
worth of Route 420 service while expending almost $1 million per year for transit services.
While City residents can and do use the Park and -Ride facilities in other communities, these are
not as convenient to most residents as a strategic Rosemount location would be, and this raises
equity and fairness concerns relative to MVTA's service area and operations. A Park- and -Ride
facility would also relieve congested conditions at other MVTA facilities.
As of July 2008, the Metropolitan Council has reached an agreement with MVTA and the City to
establish a temporary Park and -Ride location within Rosemount and dedicate two buses to this
facility with service to downtown Minneapolis. This commuter service will provide two
northbound trips in the morning, and two southbound trips in the afternoon. As will be further
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 2
discussed later in this report, the City welcomes this effort and anticipates it to be continued and
enhanced in the near future.
B. Transit Service Needs
Transit service for suburban areas such as Rosemount is a commitment that both the
Metropolitan Council and MVTA have made. Studies throughout the country have shown that
there is a need for transit services in suburban areas. One such study is the Transit Cooperative
Research Program (TCRP Report 116) "Guidebook for Evaluating, Selecting, and Implementing
Suburban Transit Services." This study outlines several transit services that are tailored to the
specific needs of the service areas. These services include:
Fixed Route Service This is the most commonly deployed transit service, fixed routes are
routes that follow a predetermined alignment and schedule.
Diverted Fixed Routes A diverted fixed route service is one in which vehicles have the
flexibility to move off a given route to service specific demands of an area. This is a service
similar to Flex Route 420 currently in Rosemount.
Demand Responsive Service This type of service is sometimes called "Dial -a- Ride." This is a
service similar to the existing DART service within the City of Rosemount.
Subscription Services A subscription service is a tailored transit service for specific
individuals which have paid a fee. This service is typical of a van pool type service.
There are several key issues that support the need for transit service and facilities in the City of
Rosemount. These include:
1. The current (2006) population of the City of Rosemount was 20,207. Based on the
Longitudinal Employer- Household Dynamics (LEHD) data, approximately 8,850
Rosemount residents are in the work force. Metropolitan Transit data indicated that
approximately 5% of work trips in the Metro region currently use transit service for their
daily commute. This suggests approximately 450 Rosemount residents would if
available.
2. Although the majority of the City of Rosemount is considered non transit dependent, Met
Council demographics indicate that approximately 1% of the Rosemount population does
not own a car and would rely on transit for their mobility needs if available. In addition,
with the increase in cost to operate and maintain a vehicle, persons at or below the
poverty level will be relying more and more on transit as an alternate means of
transportation. Based on Metropolitan Council demographics, there are approximately
3.3% of the City of Rosemount residents that are considered below the poverty level.
3. Based on Metropolitan Council data, overall transit ridership in the Twin Cities region is
increasing. Total ridership for 2007 was 5% greater (4.5 million riders) than 2006.
Likewise, the first quarter of 2008 has shown an increase of 5% over that of the first
quarter of 2007. In addition, ridership grew by close to 25% between 2004 and 2006 for
the Suburban Transit Association providers, including MVTA.
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 3
4. The Metropolitan Council's methodology for projecting Park and -Ride demand is based
on national research and assumes the primary service area for a Park- and -Ride facility is
within 2.5 miles of the facility. Figure 2 indicates the Park and -Ride facilities located
adjacent to the City of Rosemount, including the proposed Rosemount Depot Park -and-
Ride facility. As can be seen from this graphic, the majority of the City, including the
high growth areas in the City, are not currently covered by this 2.5 mile standards. With
the addition of the proposed Park -and -Ride facility at the Depot location, the majority of
the City, including the growth areas, would be covered.
5. Based on LEHD demographics, there are approximately 440 Rosemount residents that
currently work in downtown Minneapolis, 236 residents that work in downtown St. Paul,
and 481 residents that work in the I -494 corridor, including the Mall of America and
airport area. With congestion on the increase and fuel costs rising, a significant number
of these workers could and will ride transit.
6. Based on Metropolitan Council and MVTA studies, approximately 13.4% of the transit
riders at the Apple Valley Transit Center Station are Rosemount residents. These
residents are currently driving to this facility and other facilities increasing commuting
times and costs for Rosemount residents. Future Rosemount commuters are competing
for limited parking spaces and seating capacity on buses.
C. Transit Funding
Transit funds for projects in the Twin City metropolitan area and specifically the City of
Rosemount is available through several sources. These include:
1. Baseline regional transit funding This funding source is primarily legislative authorized
bonding and supported by the property tax levies and Motor Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST).
2. Federal Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement Program Funding
(CMAQ) This is a Federal program for congestion management and air quality
improvement projects. These projects are awarded based on a solicitation process
through the Metropolitan Council typically on a two -year cycle.
3. County Transit Improvement Board Funding This is a new source of funding
established in the 2008 Minnesota Legislative session. This program is being
administered by five Metro counties, including Dakota County. Similar to the CMAC
funding, there is a solicitation process for selecting transit improvement projects through
this funding source.
The details of each of these funding sources is included in Section 4.0 of this document.
An increasingly important form of transit funding is transitway development. Transitways are
defined by the Metropolitan Council as facilities on dedicated right -of -way that provide a travel
time advantage over the single occupant vehicle, improve transit reliability, and maximize the
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 4
potential for transit oriented development. In the area surrounding the City of Rosemount, Cedar
Avenue is classified as a transitway. Metropolitan Council further defines that Park- and -Ride
facilities, including express route service, should be constructed to support transit growth in both
express commuter and transitway corridors. Based on these definitions, the City of Rosemount
feels that any Park and -Ride facility that is located within the City of Rosemount and the
associated transit service will be supporting the transitways and express commuter corridors
adjacent to the City.
Based on the analysis in this document, the City of Rosemount will be actively pursuing funding
for the following activities:
1. A permanent Park- and -Ride facility on or near the temporary Depot Park- and -Ride site,
with expanded express service to Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the I -494 corridor.
2. Future study of transit needs in the City of Rosemount, including a potential circulator
system. This would be a joint study with the adjacent communities and MVTA.
3. Transit facility development associated with Umore Park.
4. Development of an east -west service line on CSAH 42 to support the Robert Street and
Cedar Avenue corridors. The City would partner with Dakota County.
5. A study to determine future Park and -Ride lot needs and associated Transit Oriented
Development guidelines.
6. Develop and promote van pools and car pools in conjunction with future Park- and -Ride
lots.
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 5
2.0 BACKGROUND DATA/ANALYSIS
2.1 Existing Service and Facilities
Existing Service
Regional service for the overall Metro area is depicted on Figure 3. Local service and
connections are depicted on Figure 4. As is noted on Figure 4, existing transit service in
Rosemount consists of Flex Route 420. This route provides east -west service between the
Rosemount Plaza in downtown Rosemount and the Apple Valley Transit Center just east of TH
77 (Cedar Avenue), at 155 Street and Gaslight Drive. From the Rosemount Plaza, the
scheduled route runs along 145 Street, 147 Path West, Emery Path, and CSAH 42. The word
"flex" signifies that the van will deviate from the standard route to pick up or drop riders "off
route", as long as those pick up /drop off points are within mile of the standard route. Those
who wish to be picked up or dropped off -route request this with a telephone call to MVTA.
Paratransit services in Rosemount are provided by Dakota Area Resources and Transportation
for Seniors (DARTS). DARTS is a Dakota County social service agency. Handicapped
equipped vans are used to provide door -to -door rides to County residents to and from any point
in the County. The rides need to be requested and scheduled ahead of time. The two categories
of trips are: a) American Disability Act (ADA), and b) general dial -a -ride (DAR).
Users of the ADA service need to register with the Metropolitan Council. General DAR service
is available to any resident of the County. ADA service is provided between 5:15 a.m. and 7:00
p.m. on weekdays. DAR service is available between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on weekdays. The
fares are the same for both the ADA service and general DAR service. The current 2008 fares
are:
Base fare $2.50 per ride
Peak travel times (6 a.m. to 9 a.m., and 3 p.m. to 6 p.m.) $3.50 per ride
For all DARTS service, rides may be formally requested up to four days in advance. They are
scheduled on a "first come, first serve" basis. DARTS can usually accommodate same day
requests for service.
Existing Facilities
There are five Park- and -Ride facilities that are within driving distance of Rosemount residents:
Apple Valley Transit Center (AVTC) 5.5 miles from Rosemount City Hall
Eagan Blackhawk Park and -Ride 9.0 miles from Rosemount City Hall
Apple Valley Palomino Park- and -Ride 8.0 miles from Rosemount City Hall
Eagan Transit Center 12.5 miles from Rosemount City Hall
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 6
157 Street Park and -Ride 4.0 miles from Rosemount City Hall
The locations of these facilities are depicted on Figure S. The 157 Street facility is relatively
close to Rosemount, but has very limited service. The most attractive of the available sites in
terms of service frequency and coverage is AVTC. However, this facility has been significantly
over capacity for years. Recently, parking was expanded onto the adjacent Watson's site. This
has helped parking demand at the AVTC site. In addition, Blackhawk and Palomino Hills are at
or approaching capacity. These facilities have significantly less service than the AVTC. Details
of each transit facility are discussed in Appendix A.
2.2 Dakota County Transit Plan (draft)
Dakota County is currently preparing a Transit Plan. A draft review copy has been provided to
participating agencies including the City of Rosemount. This document builds on the
information in the transportation section of the Dakota County Transportation Plan. Key points
of the draft Transit Plan relative to this study include the following:
The County is anticipating continued rapid growth, and highways will see corresponding
increases in congestion levels. This reinforces the need for improved regional transit
service to remove single occupancy vehicles from the roadways.
Much of the County has low- density residential development, and this is projected to
continue. Given that density is a key factor determining potential ridership, this makes
mid -day, frequent transit service a challenge. More potential exists for expanding
express service, and associated facilities, into major employment centers such as
downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul.
The County places a high priority on coordinating with cities to support the development
of transit and transit- related infrastructure.
The County is committed to providing and supporting effective service to transit-
dependent individuals through special/paratransit transportation services.
The County will provide a leadership role and work with its partners to ensure
permanent, dedicated and reliable funding sources for transit at the Federal, State,
regional, and local levels.
2.3 Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is an express transit service on dedicated lanes that provides movement
and speed advantages for the buses relative to general traffic BRT has been designated as the
transit technology for the Cedar Avenue Corridor.
Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority has taken the lead on planning and implementing
this transitway. It ultimately will extend from the Mall of America Transit Station in
Bloomington to 70 Street in Lakeville along Cedar Avenue. The Cedar Avenue Corridor is
identified on the Metropolitan Council's transitway map (Figure 6) as a Tier 1 corridor. The
buses will run along the shoulders of the roadway, and transit advantages such as prioritized
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 7
signal timing will be utilized. The plan as outlined in a corridor study adopted by the Dakota
County Regional Railroad Authority in 2004 was to implement the project in five -year phases, as
summarized below. These actions will be accelerated with the US Department of Transportation
Urban Partnership Agreement, as discussed in Section 2.4, below.
Phase 1: 2004 2009
Completion of environmental documentation and preliminary engineering of the
overall transitway
Continued express bus operations on shoulders of TH 77 portion of Cedar Avenue
Improvement of shoulders of CR 23 portion of Cedar Avenue to allow bus usage
Addition/improvement of transit stations and Park- and -Ride lots in the corridor
Phase 2: 2010 2014
Introduction of special low -floor BRT buses
Increased frequency of service
Improvement of Palomino Hills Transit Station
Phase 3: 2015 2019
Extension of express service south to a new Park- and -Ride lot in Lakeville
Intermediate station stops added in southern service area
Ultimately the BRT service may be provided on center running bus lanes between TH 13 and
Palomino, with dedicated bus access to and from the center lanes at the Cedar Grove station
(TH 13), and a station stop at Cliff Road.
2.4 Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA)
The US Department of Transportation has initiated a major program to limit congestion on key
urban roadways. This program is often referred to as the Congestion Initiative. Cities were
asked to submit proposals for congestion relief programs to receive federal funding under this
program. In 2007, Minneapolis /St. Paul was selected as one of five model cities to receive
funding for the projects identified in their proposal. The federal grant amount will be $133
million, including $86 million for transit projects. A local match of approximately $55 million
has been secured legislation.
One of the primary projects which will receive substantial UPA funding is the Cedar Avenue
transitway corridor/BRT. This funding will accelerate the development of the Park- and -Ride
facilities planned for the corridor, allowing them to be completed by end of 2009. UPA funding
is already committed to specific projects. Further information on UPA funding and projects in
the Cedar Avenue corridor is provided in Appendix B.
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 8
2.5 Robert Street Corridor Transit Feasibility Study
This study, initiated in 2007, is being led by Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority. The
study area, depicted on Figure 7, is generally bounded by Downtown St. Paul to the north,
CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob Road) to the west, CSAH 46 to the south, and the Mississippi River to the
east. There currently is not extensive transit service in this study area. This factor, combined
with anticipated continued development, increasingly congested roadways, and an aging
population, create the need to explore potential transit options and improvements.
This study is a long -term, planning level effort to evaluate general alternatives and make
recommendations for future evaluation and potential implementation steps. Rather than just
TH 3 (Robert Street), it evaluates a number of alternatives /segments including north south, east
west, and radial (i.e., TH 55) corridors. A project report has not yet been finalized (as of July
2008), but the County has presented study findings and recommendations at various meetings
and on the County web site. A Long -Term Corridor Vision has been identified and released by
the County, as depicted on Figure 8. From the perspective of Rosemount residents, the most
significant features of the Corridor Vision are:
Light Rail Transit (LRT) or BRT in railroad right -of -way adjacent to TH 3 and TH 149
to the north, with connecting service to downtown St. Paul and the Hiawatha LRT line
via express bus service on TH 55.
Limited stop Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along CSAH 42
One of the current study recommendations is to designate Robert Street (TH 3) as a transitway
with BRT from downtown St. Paul to I -494. With the anticipated development of the Umore site
and growth in the City of Rosemount, the City would encourage the Metropolitan Council to
extend the transitway designation to the Umore site. This would provide opportunities, not only
for the City, but for the University of Minnesota to develop and fund transit facilities in the
corridor.
2.6 2030 Transit Master Plan
The Metropolitan Council is in the process of preparing the 2030 Transit Master Plan (TMP) for
the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The new plan will incorporate regional population,
employment, and land -use changes, since the last transit plan was adopted in 1999. The plan
will consider ways to respond to new regional projections to the year 2030. The 2030 Transit
Plan is proposed to be completed by February 2009.
As part of the 2030 TMP, Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) submitted several
requests for additional routes impacting the City of Rosemount. These routes include:
Rosemount/MOA This route will travel between Rosemount and the Mall of
American beginning at the Depot Park- and -Ride. This route will travel through the City
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 9
of Rosemount and the City of Apple Valley to Cedar Avenue, then north to the Mall of
Amenca.
Rosemount/Minneapolis This route is proposed to be an express route traveling from
the Depot Park and -Ride in Rosemount north along TH 3 to CR 38 west to Cedar
Avenue, then north to the City of Minneapolis.
Rosemount /St. Paul This route is proposed to be an express route traveling from the
Depot Park and -Ride along CSAH 42 to TH 52, then north to the City of St. Paul.
2.7 Rosemount Transit Public Involvement
On April 28, 2007, the City held a public meeting at City Hall to gather public input on transit
issues. The public meeting was advertised in advance in the Rosemount Town Pages, City
newsletter, direct mailings, and City website. Poster boards were displayed showing information
on existing regional and local transit service, and other regional transit studies. City staff was
available to answer questions and take comments. As part of this effort, a transit questionnaire
was prepared and administered.
Twenty residents responded at the Open House (or using questionnaires they picked up at the
Open House), and 37 responded to the on -line version of the questionnaire. A summary of the
results is provided below:
Table 2.1 Summa of Rosemount Transit Surve Results, 2007
Number of respondents who currently
regularly use bus service to commute to
work:
Number of respondents who currently use
one or more Park and -Ride lots:
Number of respondents who would use a
Park- and -Ride lot if one were more
accessible to them:
length of time respondents (on average)
would be willing to travel to a Park -and-
Ride lot:
Number of respondents identifying as best
location for a Park- and -Ride facility:
CSAH 42 /TH 3
TH 3 /CSAH 38
TH 3 /160 Street
CSAH 42 /TH 52
CSAH 42 /Chippendale
Dakota County Technical College
CSAH 42 /CR 73
8
27
9 3 minutes
13
12
10
5
4
3
2
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 10
In addition to the open house, a Transit Task Force was appointed by the City Council to discuss
transit issues and help direct the development of the Transit Plan. This group was made up of
City Council representatives, Planning Commission representatives, and local residents who had
an interest in improving transit in the City.
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 11
3.0 TRANSIT SERVICE ANALYSIS
3.1 Proposed Rosemount Depot Park and -Ride, Fleet, and Service
The Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) submitted a federal funding application in
2007 for the "Depot" Park- and -Ride facility along with associated buses and service. The
proposed Park and -Ride facility would be generally bounded by 145 Street, the CP tracks, and
Burma Avenue. Four buses were proposed to be acquired and dedicated to express service
between the Depot facility and downtown Minneapolis. Four runs during the a.m. and p.m.
peak, respectively, were envisioned.
Although this application was not successful in securing funding, it has been the basis for
discussion for approved temporary Park- and -Ride lot and service.
A Park- and -Ride facility within the City would not only provide Rosemount residents with more
convenient access to express service, but would also relieve existing MVTA Park and -Ride
facilities in the area, which are over or approaching capacity Roughly half of those who
completed the transit survey conducted by the City of Rosemount in 2007 as discussed
previously stated that they would use a Park -and -Ride facility if one were more convenient to
them.
As documented in the 2007 federal funding application for the Depot facility and operations,
MVTA estimates that ridership would be 280 per day. This assumes four buses operating at
approximately 90 percent capacity making direct runs between the Depot Park- and -Ride location
and downtown Minneapolis during the a.m. peak, and four return runs in the p.m. peak. A
specific route was not identified in the 2007 CMAQ funding application.
Using the methodology and land use assumptions from the Metropolitan Council's 2005 Park
and -Ride Plan, the theoretical demand for Park and -Ride vehicle spaces for a downtown
Minneapolis destination is as follows:
Year 2010 380 spaces
Year 2020 520 spaces
Year 2030 750 spaces
(Please note: these estimates only include projected commuters to downtown Minneapolis, not
St. Paul)
The above parking estimates assume some reduction in demand due to the 157 Street Park -and-
Ride based on Metropolitan Council guidance. These estimates appear to be high based on
MVTA's estimate for ridership. However, it gives further evidence for the need for Park -and-
Ride capacity at this location based on the Metropolitan Council's methodology.
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 12
Capital Costs
Buses
4 x $345,000
$1,380,000
Park and -Ride Lot
$562,000
Total Capital Costs
$1,942,000
Operating Costs
Platform Operating Hours
3,4680 hours /yr x $90/hr
$312,120
Revenues
71,400 riders x $2.25 /rider
$160,650
Net Operating Costs
$312,120 $151,470
$151,470
Subsidy per Passenger
$151,470/71,400
$2.12
MVTA Average Subsidy (2006)
$3.98
The estimated costs associated with the proposed service supporting the Depot Park and -Ride
facility as presented in MVTA's federal funding application are summarized in Table 3 -1,
below.
Table 3 -1 Direct Express Service to Minneapolis Estimated Costs (MVTA
These costs are considered relatively small in relationship to the tax dollars which Rosemount
residents contribute to MVTA. As presented in Section 1.0 of this report, the average tax
revenue from Rosemount residents provided to MVTA over the past five years has averaged
approximately $1,000,000 per year and has increased steadily every year.
The 2007 Metropolitan Council transit system performance evaluation indicates that the average
operating subsidy for MVTA is $3.98 per passenger. As indicated above, the anticipated
operating subsidy for the expanded express service from Rosemount to Minneapolis would be
$2.12 per passenger. This is significantly less than the average for the MVTA system.
3.2 Future Transit in Rosemount
Most of the demand for scheduled transit service in Rosemount and adjacent communities is
associated with express commuter travel to major job centers. This factor is anticipated to
continue, and shapes the discussion provided in this section.
A Short -Term Issues and Planning
The City of Rosemount's residents have not received transit service and facilities commensurate
with the tax dollars they have contributed towards MVTA over many years. Roughly half of
those who completed the transit survey conducted by the City of Rosemount in 2007 of this
Transit Plan stated that they would use a Park- and -Ride facility if one were more convenient to
them. In 2007, MVTA did apply for federal CMAQ funding for a Park- and -Ride facility in
downtown Rosemount and associated direct service to downtown Minneapolis. While this
application was not funded, it documented the need for such a facility and associated service.
In coordinating with the Metropolitan Council, MVTA has recently agreed to begin providing
express transit service directly to Rosemount residents. This service, anticipated to commence in
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 13
September 2008 will use a temporary Park and -Ride lot at the movie theater parking lot south of
CSAH 42 and east of Chippendale Avenue. Two buses will be dedicated to this service. From
the Park and -Ride lot, each bus will make a northbound run to downtown Minneapolis via the
157` Avenue Station during the a.m. commuter rush. During the p.m. commuter rush, each bus
will make a southbound run to bring workers home.
The City welcomes this service and anticipates that it will be sustained and enhanced in the near
future. A permanent Park -and -Ride facility will be required. While the initial service to be
provided will include two 40 -foot buses, MVTA projects (2007 CMAQ funding application) that
ridership demand from Rosemount at 280 per day, necessitating four dedicated buses.
A Park- and -Ride facility in downtown Rosemount will function as part of the Cedar Avenue
transitway. Instead of Rosemount residents going to other cities' Park and -Ride facilities, the
Rosemount service will feed into the Cedar Avenue transitway. The City believes that facilities
and service from Rosemount should be considered a part of the larger Cedar Avenue transit
system and be eligible for transitway funding. Improved transit operations in the Cedar Avenue
corridor are a high priority within the region, and UPA funding will accelerate planned
improvements significantly. Linkage between Rosemount and the Cedar Avenue corridor could
be provided via CSAH 42 or CSAH 38 (McAndrews Road).
B. Longer -Term Issues and Planning
At least one permanent Park- and -Ride facility will be required in Rosemount. One site to be
further investigated is the Depot site. The City will coordinate with MVTA to investigate this
and other sites as appropriate.
It is important for the City to consider potential future locations for Park- and -Ride facilities from
the perspective of general land use planning and control. Relative to the potential longer term
need for Park- and -Ride capacity, significant planning issues to consider are covered under the
following headings.
Planning Considerations
Future Land Use
Park and -Ride transit stops should be located in proximity to residential areas so residents can
easily access them, potentially by walking and/or biking. The City's 2030 Land Use Plan is
included as Figure 9. The City anticipates a significant amount of development in the easterly
portions of Rosemount that are currently undeveloped. It can be seen that High Density
Residential is identified for the CSAH 42 /Akron Avenue (CSAH 73) intersection representing a
potentially attractive location for a Park- and -Ride facility.
University of Minnesota Outreach Research and Education (UMore)
The University of Minnesota's Outreach Research and Education (UMore) Park Area is depicted
on Figure I 0. This area, 5,000 acres in size, is currently undeveloped. In 2006, the University
of Minnesota conunissioned an extensive study to evaluate alternative approaches to manage
and/or develop the site. The recommended approach which has been adopted by the University's
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 14
Board of regents has been to pursue development of a residential community in a manner using
sound planning principals to limit environmental impacts and promote active and healthy living.
The approach recommended by the University's lead consultant for the project calls for
redevelopment of the area over the next 20 to 30 years, with the potential for 20,000 30,000
residents.
If the UMore residential development does, in fact, move forward, this would significantly
enhance demand for transit facilities in the Rosemount area. One of the goals of the
development would be to use sustainable practices, which would include the use of transit to the
greatest degree feasible.
Preliminary plans for the Umore site show transit station locations within the development. In
addition, the Robert Street corridor plan shows a direct connection into the Umore development
site (see Figure 8). The City will continue to work through the development review process in
locating and developing transit facilities within the Umore Park development.
Future Transit Service Routes
Any Park- and -Ride facility would have to be located adjacent to limited stop transit service.
Transit vehicles should not spend substantial time going off -route to pick up riders because this
decreases the time attractiveness for other riders and the overall service. Thus, it is important to
consider where future transit service through Rosemount may be located.
Based on study and recommendations by Dakota County (see Figure 8), it is considered unlikely
that express transit service will be provided along TH 52 in the vicinity of Rosemount in the
foreseeable future. Metro Transit staff has indicated that their agency is not planning service in
this corridor. There is limited population in this corridor to support express service to major
employment centers.
According to Metro Transit staff, it is unlikely that express or other transit service would ever be
implemented within the TH 3 roadway right -of -way because its alignment is too circuitous for
efficient bus operations. The most viable option in this general corridor is railroad right -of -way
east of TH 3. As seen on Figure 8, Dakota County has identified this as a Potential Transitway,
with either LRT or BRT operations. If this transitway is implemented, it likely would have a
long term timeframe.
An important potential future service line to consider is along CSAH 42. As is indicated in
Section 2.5 of this Transit Plan, all of the alternatives currently identified for future study in
Dakota County's Robert Street Corridor Transit project (Figure 8) include east -west BRT
service along CSAH 42. From the perspective of Rosemount commuters, the primary
importance of such enhanced bus service would be to link to Cedar Avenue BRT service. CSAH
42 bus service would not have to be full -scale BRT, as is currently being considered in the
Robert Street Transit Corridor study. It could include other general transit advantage measures,
such as bus -only shoulders and/or signal prioritization, to be effective.
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 15
Circulator Transit Service
With the growth of employment centers and retail hubs in the southeast Metro area, a need for a
reliable circulator transit system is becoming more evident. This type of service would operate
on a limited regular schedule, providing access to the employment centers and retail hubs
throughout the area. This type of service would require commitments from not only MVTA as
the operator, but the local communities in the area that would benefit from the service. This
circulator system should be studied in partnership with MVTA and the communities adjacent to
the City of Rosemount to determine need and potential service routes.
Potential Park and Ride Locations
Potential future Park and -Ride locations have been identified for longer -term consideration.
These locations are depicted on Figure 11. Using the Metropolitan Council's methodology for
estimating parking demand at Park- and -Ride facilities, Table 3 -2 provides generalized demand
estimates. The Metropolitan Council's methodology for estimating demand for given Park -and-
Ride locations is based on information according to transportation analysis zones (TAZs). These
TAZs have been established by the Metropolitan Council for use of the Council's regional traffic
forecasting model, and transportation- related information is organized according to this system.
The Metropolitan Council has estimated demand for each TAZ in the region for trips to
downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul, respectively. The TAZs within the area of the
proposed Park- and -Ride sites are identified and the Metropolitan Council information used to
project parking demand for those sites.
Table 3 -2 Projected Park and -Ride Demand 2005 Met Council Methodology
and Assum tions
CSAH 42 /TH 52
CSAH 42 /CSAH 73
CSAH 42/TH 3
TH 3 /CSAH
38/Biscayne
50
150
550
450
200
350
700
600
300
500
1,100
850
Note: these estimates do not include the development associated with UMore Park. They include ridership to
downtown Minneapolis plus St. Paul
CSAH 42 /TH 52
This location would serve the future development planned for this interchange area, as well as
other local and regional commuters. It most likely would support bus operations along CSAH
42, carrying passengers to Cedar Avenue BRT and/or points west.
CSAH 42 /Akron Avenue (CSAH 73)
A key consideration for the attractiveness of this location will the potential development of the
UMore site as discussed above. If this site is developed, it would be close enough to the CSAH
42 /CSAH 73 location such that UMore residents could walk and/or bike to the transit stop. The
development of a facility at this location would be dependant on bus service along the CSAH 42
corridor.
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 16
CSAH 42 /TH 3
This site is attractive because of its proximity to a large number of residences and is at the
intersection of two arterial roadways for good vehicular access.
TH 3 /CSAH 38/Biscayne Avenue
It is unlikely that bus service will be provided north on TH 3 at this location because of
hilly /winding conditions. However, if a transitway is developed in the railroad right -of -way
adjacent to TH 3, a potential location for a Park- and -Ride to support this service would the
intersection of TH 3 and Biscayne. Although a Park- and -Ride at this location would not be
serviced by buses on TH 3, there would be potential for service from this location along CSAH
38 to the Cedar Avenue corridor. Residents could access this location via TH 3 or CSAH 38
(McAndrews Road), both of which are arterial roadways.
Van Pool Car Pool
Van pools and car pools are an important function of the Park- and -Ride facilities proposed in the
above section. These Park -and -Ride facilities not only will support fixed route or other types of
transit service, but will support locations at which van pools and car pools can originate. The
Metropolitan Council operates a van pool program called "VanGo," which is a program that can
be utilized for Rosemount residents. Van pools are made up of 5 -15 people commuting to and
from work together on a regular basis. Typically, the monthly van pool costs average
approximately $100 per month, per person. One of the requirements of the VanGo program is
that the service must not duplicate any of the Twin Cities' public transportation system services.
With minimal fixed route or other service to the City of Rosemount, having van pools begin and
end at the Park- and -Ride locations would qualify for this service. The City will work with
Metropolitan Council and local residents in providing adequate parking and promoting and
developing van pools and car pools.
3.3 Park and -Ride Design Considerations
A basic approach for implementing Park- and -Ride facilities will be based on the needs at each
specification location. Demand for Park- and -Ride capacity can be projected using established
methods. However, on a location -by- locations basis there will always be some uncertainty as to
what the demand would actually be. The basic types of Park- and -Ride facilities are as follows:
1. Park and Pool A surface lot could be established at a location where there currently is
not transit service, but such service is anticipated in the future. Travelers would
coordinate and meet at this location such that only one vehicle (car or van) would carry
multiple commuters to a common downstream employment area.
2. Park -and -Ride Surface Lot A park- and -pool lot could then be converted to a Park -and-
Ride lot when transit service is actually introduced. The demand for spaces and surface
area would then be increased significantly.
3. Expanded Park- and -Ride Surface Lot As Park- and -Ride demand grows, area should
ideally be established ahead of time for potential expansion of the surface lot.
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 17
4. Structured Parking As Park and -Ride demand outgrows the ability to expand the
parking capacity on the surface level, the facility may vertically expand with structured
parking on an additional level or levels.
5. Transit Center Park- and -Ride facilities can be further developed into transit centers
where multiple transit lines meet with timed transfers.
Successful design of Park- and -Ride facilities addresses and balances the following factors:
Ease of access To maximize utilization, motorists should be able to readily access the
facility without having to travel far from arterial roadway. Likewise, transit buses should
be able access the facility without traveling far from their line haul route to maximize
route efficiency. Access points should meet all applicable requirements and guidelines
for sight distances, turning radii, and other access design elements.
Separation of Modes Access for different modes should be well organized and
separated to the degree feasible to minimize conflicts and maximize efficiency of the
various operations. Factors to consider include separate access driveways for transit and
non transit modes, as well as a designated access point for "drop- and ride" activities.
Non motorized access needs to be properly accommodated.
Sufficient bike storage and pedestrian accessibility For Park- and -Ride facilities to be
truly multi modal, they should effectively accommodate non motorized travelers. Bike
lockers are non motorized versions of vehicle stalls and need to be included.
Aesthetic integration into the surrounding community Park- and -Ride facilities should
be clearly visible from the roadway with unambiguous access design, but at the same
time should fit the surrounding context to the greatest degree feasible. For surface
facilities, this would include measures such as appropriate site location and configuration,
and attractive landscaping and lighting. Large, featureless expanses of pavement/vehicles
should be avoided. For structured parking, attention to basic architectural design quality
and appropriate materials should receive a high priority.
Comfort, Safety, and Security Users of the facility should feel comfortable and secure
when using the facility. Measures to address this would include effective lighting,
minimizing required walking distances, and sheltered/heated waiting areas. A balance
should be struck between having the facility fitting unobtrusively into its context (see
above) versus having parked vehicles be visible for security purposes. Surveillance
cameras should be considered for personal and property security purposes.
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Park and -Ride lots can be incorporated into
broader land use development areas that feature mixed land use, relatively dense
development, and enhanced walkability. TOD is discussed in greater detail in the
following section of this report.
Any Park- and -Ride facility in Rosemount would likely be developed and constructed in
partnership with the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority and/or Dakota County and/or the
University of Minnesota (UMore Park). Detailed design considerations regarding factors such as
private vehicle access points and circulation, and bus access and passenger collection
configurations, would be coordinated with those agencies meeting all applicable standards and
guidelines.
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 18
3.4 Transit Oriented Development
Overview
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is a concept which is increasingly being considered and
implemented in Twin Cities' metro area and elsewhere. The basic premise is to concentrate a
mix of land uses and activities in close proximity to a transit stop such that the transit ridership
and the TOD -based activity will support each other. The core principals of TOD development
are summarized under the following headings.
Compact Development Medium to high density development in proximity to a transit
station means that more people and activities will be within a walkable distance from the
transit stop. The Metropolitan Council considers approximately 1/4 mile to be a
comfortable walking distance.
Mix of Land Uses Mixing land uses such as residential, retail, and office within
walking distance of the transit stop means that the stop will be both an origin and a
destination for trips at the station. From a broader planning perspective, mixed land use
should have the affect of reducing the need for vehicular trips, because residents in the
TOD area can easily access local jobs and shopping opportunities, workers can access
retail and services, and so forth.
Pedestrian Orientation A central component of the TOD concept is walkability, such
that there is attractive non motorized access between land uses within the TOD area, and
between those land uses and the transit stop. Some of the basic walkability goals would
be street facing buildings on a network of pedestrian scaled streets on a grid pattern,
attractive streetscaping, and appropriate traffic control at pedestrian crossing points.
Transportation Interfaces Different travel modes need to be effectively linked for
TOD to be successful. This includes transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular. While
the TOD concept is based on a reduced need to use private vehicles, there will still be a
need for vehicles to be appropriately accommodated. This could include Park and -Ride
capacity such that people could drive to the transit stop, take transit to work and back,
and then shop within the TOD area prior to driving home at night.
Considerations for Rosemount
The City of Rosemount is currently undertaking a downtown revitalization effort which will
increase the mix of land uses and overall development densities. As envisioned by the City, this
redevelopment will be generally consistent with the TOD approach, and would be compatible
with the Depot a Park- and -Ride location (145 Street and Burma Avenue) as depicted on
Figure 8.
In reviewing other potential locations for TOD development, it is helpful consider existing and
future land use as envisioned on Figure 9, along with potential Park and -Ride locations as
identified on Figure 11. The City anticipates continued residential land use in the vicinity of the
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 19
TH 3 /CSAH 38 location, so rezoning would have to take place to allow retail, office, or other
uses to take place there. For the other potential Park and -Ride locations, the adjacent areas
either have or are planned to have a mix of land uses which would be consistent with a TOD
approach.
The basic components of TOD, including mixed land use, medium to high density development,
walkability, and effective multi -modal accommodation, are planning goals which have value in
their own right, even if transit is not part of the limited development process. The City should
continue to promote these concepts in developing and/or redeveloping areas with an eye towards
potential integration with transit service, primarily at the locations identified as candidates for
Park and -Ride facilities (with the exception of the TH 3 /CSAH 38 location as discussed above).
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 20
4.0 TRANSIT FUNDING SOURCES
The primary sources of transit funding in the Twin Cities metropolitan area are summarized
below:
Baseline Regional Transit Funding
For years, regional transit operating costs (driver wages, administrative costs, utilities, etc.) over
and above fare box recovery were funded primarily by local property taxes, with significant
contributions also from the state general fund. Beginning in 2001, property taxes could no
longer be used for this purpose, and they were replaced by the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax
(MVST). Allocations to the state general fund continue to represent a significant portion of
transit operating funding in the metro region.
Funds for capital costs, including vehicles, facilities, and equipment, are allocated by the
Metropolitan Council. The primary sources of capital funding are federal formula funds
administered by the Federal Transit Authority, and the Regional Transit Capital (RTC). The
RTC, controlled by the Metropolitan Council, is funded by legislatively authorized bonding and
supported by property tax levies.
Federal Congestion Management and Air Quality Improvement Program Funding
(CMAQ)
Every two years, the Metropolitan Council solicits applications for federal transportation
funding. Applications are submitted by Mn/DOT, county and local government agencies, and
transit authorities. Selection of projects for funding are made through a competitive process as
administered by the Metropolitan Council. There are various project categories. Transit projects
fall under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program. During
the 2007 regional solicitation cycle, approximately $55 million in SAFETEA -LU federal funds
were allocated to CMAQ projects in the region. Traditionally, CMAQ has been the most
important source of funding for transit projects outside of the baseline funding. Operating costs
for existing transit service are not eligible for funding under this program.
Counties Transit Improvement Board
During the 2008 session, the Minnesota Legislature passed legislation giving counties in the
metropolitan area the authority to form a joint powers board and impose a one quarter percent
sales and use tax, and an excise tax of $20 per vehicle purchased to support transit services and
facilities. Five metro counties, including Dakota County, have established a Joint Powers
Agreement based on this legislation. This program will provide key funding in a stable and
predictable manner to promote transit availability and ridership in the metro area. Minnesota
Statute 297A.992 (subdivision 6), the statutory basis of CTIB, defines four categories of eligible
grant applications:
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 21
Capital improvements to transitways including, but not limited to, commuter rail rolling
stock, light rail vehicles, and transitway buses
Capital costs for Park and -Ride facilities
Feasibility study, planning /environmental study, engineering, property acquisition, and
construction of transitways
Operating assistance for transitways
Dakota County has estimated that the CTIB program will raise approximately $50 million for
metro region projects in calendar year 2009, increasing to approximately $110 million by
calendar year 2010. Allocation of this funding will be based on a competitive application
process, generally analogous to the Metropolitan Council's regional solicitation for federal
funding program described above.
Five of the seven metropolitan counties have entered into a joint powers agreement establishing
the Counties Transit Improvement Board (Board) as authorized by the state legislation discussed
above. The five counties are: Anoka, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, and Washington. Scott and
Carver Counties have chosen not to participate. Per requirements of Minnesota Statute
297A.992, subdivision 5, the Board established a Grant Evaluation and Ranking System
(GEARS) committee. This committee evaluates grant applications following objective criteria to
be established by the Board.
The Board will consist of two commissioners from each of the member counties, as well as the
Chair of the Metropolitan Council. Ninety five percent of the voting authority on the Board is
allocated to the member counties, with the remaining five percent allocated to the Metropolitan
Council. Within the 95 percent, each county will receive votes proportionate to its share of the
total population and sales tax of the Board counties. The full Joint Powers Agreement is
included as Appendix C.
Of direct interest to the City of Rosemount is the potential funding for a Park and -Ride facility or
facilities and associated express services in the City of Rosemount. Per Minnesota Statute
297A.992, which references Minnesota Statute 174.256, subdivision 2, a Park- and -Ride facility
is defined as "a facility consisting of a Park and -Ride lot where commuters' automobiles are
parked and, within a reasonable walking distance, a station or some transfer point where
commuters board the transit mode. `Transit mode' includes transportation by bus, car pool, van-
pool, and other similar services." Based on review of the statutes, eligible Park- and -Ride
facilities need not be directly on enhanced transitways as formally defined by the Metropolitan
Council. Park- and -Ride facilities within Rosemount, including the associated transit service,
would support transitway operations on the Cedar Avenue corridor or on a potential future
transitway along current railroad right -of -way adjacent to the Robert Street (TH 3) corridor.
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 22
VROSEMOUNT
ail
pe roma
jti:i:ti.
r•r•f• }•r• pioni
ti•ti•ti•ti•ti• r
Pe r 0,04.1,41.4 -A
r lf/aM etro 4, 4lk
ill "TIM. *Iiiips O A ll
TA- ild
iii!'7%illakinew, um
ilimumniii
imory
City of Rosemount, Minnesota
Transit Plan
Prepared by.
Q 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
WSB
6 Associates, Inc
Minneapolis, MN 55416
ww vyabeng.00m
761611.00 -F 53441-1706
IIRa571aJCTURE ENGNffl3116 PUMf4D CON417a7CTEN
Service Areas of Metro Area
Transit Providers
Figure 1
Date: Printed: 7/2
WSB Filename: K:\01_ ,2\Cad\Plan\ f ig-02.dgn
Dote: Printed: 7/
WSB Filename: K: \L.
J2 \Cod \Plan\ fig- 03.dgn
Dote: Printed: 7/23/2008
WSB Filename: K:\01556-92\Cad\Plan\fig-04.dgn
VROSEMOUNT
4 r
ueu
EDINA
OF
RLOIUINOIW
ITTOAlf
NCNFELO
Sr J
l
PH
mNO,NE.
AUOEROALE
Eagan
Transit Center
EAGAN
FAGOT
z
LITIIE
0 orsrnci IIOgVELE
VEST
SAINT
DIVER
OVE
1GNTB
GOUTN
GT. PAUL
9prwaT
COTTAGE
GROVE
a8V ar.
3 N 1.
Apple Valley I 157th Street Station
Transit Center Park and -Ride
Li
LAKEVILLE
f
MINNESOTA
0 A 0 T A
b raw '2)„, O
nVOPt1r ;skiff I f 'f S _e Nn
1 ROSEMOUNT" 1 I i �s .r s F t
I 0 11 L G et .1
�J
7 f f 0 ii ti r f 1
t l s y' i dUJA.T 1 fi i ..ce r..c
cOATFP s
r
N
ti•�".tfr.
City of Rosemount, Minnesota
Transit Plan
Prepared by:
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
Q
WSB en Mirneapdic, MN 55416
eww.weberg.com
Associates, Inc
7054140•FaIO5414703
NFRAeRUC1UNE r ENGGFERNG 1 PtANNNG r CONSTRUCTION
j PINE
I8 It OO
sr.
atm
M018UP
LEGEND Existing Transit Facility
Existing Transit Facilities
Available to Rosemount Residents
Figure 5
VROSEMOUNT
MINNESOTA
Transitway
System
Transitways on
Dedicated ROW
Tier 1
Northstar
Northwest
Cedar Avenue
I -35W
Central
Tier 2
Red Rock
Ruch 1 Ina
Southwest
0 1r Transitways on Dedicated ROW
'No Express Commuter Bus System
Source: Metropolitan Council
August 2004
2030
City of Rosemount, Minnesota
Transit Plan
Prepared by:
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
Minnaepolia, MN 55416
awrv.a4beng.cam
Metropolitan Council
2030 Transitway System
&Ima
7815e.4 F*1a1411 -1100
INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PUNNING CONSTRUCTION
Figure 6
23 r
3r
wr x LRT
..O AO
City of Rosemount, Minnesota
Transit Plan
Prepared by:
701 Xenia Avenue South, Su0e 300
WSB
MirNNNpotin, MN 55416
h
Associates, Inc.
7XidK410N.Fa7a355.T700
MFRASIRUCTURE r ENGINEERING r PIANNNG r CONSTRUCTION
LAKEVILLE
LEGEND
1m
MEMNON
Study Area
weep ma.
47:1 717
1
t �7
Robert Street
Transit Corridor Study Area
Figure 7
Notahtsite
it7111SIE
Long Term
Vision
p Park a Ride
ME Express Bus
NiMi Limed Stop BRT
1
Potential Transinwy
nl Agenda! Street Car
Existing Transit
:rn
Robert Street Corridor
Transit Feasibility Study
145th St E '1
Ir
City of Rosemount, Minnesota
Transit Plan
Prepared by:
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
WSB Mirneepois, MN 55416
■aw.wsbeng.mm
a�
705e4mO -Fa 7n&t -1704
eFRASIRUCnnff ENGINEERING MANNING r coeulsGCNON
Robert St Corridor Transit Study
Long Term Vision
Figure 8
Dote: Printed: 7/2
WSB Filename: K: \0,. ..2 \Cad \Plan \fig- 09.dgn
VROSEMOUNT
City of Rosemount, Minnesota
Transit Plan
Prepared by:
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
WSB Minneapolis, MN 55416
WSB www wsbeng.com
it Associates, Inc.
7665414800- Fax 763541.1700
INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING CONSTRUCTION
MINNESOTA
UMore Park Area
Figure 10
Date: Printed: 7/23/2008
WSB Filename: K: \0/556 -92 \Cod \Pion \fig- 11.dgn
APPENDIX A
Existing Transit Facilities
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 1
Existing Transit Facilities
Apple Valley Transit Center
The Apple Valley Transit Center has two key components. First it has a Park and -Ride lot with
470 vehicle spaces. These spaces are all used on a regular basis, and there is significant demand
for more spaces. MVTA has recently secured parking in an adjacent parking lot for 100 parking
places, with more available in the future or the Watson site. Second, it is a stopping point for
eight transit lines with extensive combined service areas. These routes, and the
areas /destinations they serve, are identified on Table A.1, below.
Table A.1- A le Valle Transit Center Routes
420
422
425
440
442
465
477
480
Local /flex route
Local/suburb to suburb
Local/suburb to suburb
Local /suburb to suburb
Local/suburb to suburb
Minneapolis Express
Minneapolis Express
St. Paul Express
Apple Valley Transit Station, Rosemount
Apple Valley local, Apple Valley
Transit Station, Burnsville, Mall of
America
Apple Valley local, Burnsville, Best
Buy Headquarters, Burnsville Transit
Station
Apple Valley local Apple Valley
Transit Station, Blackhawk Park -and-
Ride, Mall of America, Minnesota Zoo
Apple Valley, Apple Valley Transit,
Burnsville, Mall of America
Apple Valley, Burnsville, Downtown
Minneapolis, Burnsville Transit Station,
I -35W and 66 Street, University of
Minnesota
Apple Valley, Downtown Minneapolis,
157 St. Station (CR 46/CR31)
Downtown St. Paul, Apple Valley
Transit Station, Blackhawk Park -and-
Ride
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT
2
Eagan Blackhawk Park and -Ride
The Eagan Blackhawk Park and -Ride facility is located at Cliff Road and I -35E. This facility
has 367 parking spaces, which were approximately 80 percent utilized in 2007. The following
Routes stop at this facility:
420 Local /flex route: Apple Valley, Rosemount
440 Local /suburb to suburb service: Apple Valley, Eagan, Bloomington
472 Express service: Downtown Minneapolis, South Minneapolis (I- 35W/Lake Street)
480 Express service: Downtown St. Paul, Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan
Apple Valley Palomino Park and -Ride
The Apple Valley Palomino station is located at Palomino Drive and Pennock Avenue, south and
west of the I- 35E /TH 77 (Cedar Avenue) interchange. This facility has 312 parking spaces,
which were approximately 95 percent utilized in 2007. The following routes stop at this facility:
442 Local /suburb to suburb service: Apple Valley, Burnsville, Bloomington, Mall of
America Transit Center
476 Express Service: Downtown Minneapolis, South Minneapolis (I -35W /Lake Street),
Apple Valley (local stops, Palomino Park- and -Ride, Apple Valley Transit Center)
477 Express Service: Downtown Minneapolis, South Minneapolis (I -35W /Lake Street),
Apple Valley (Palomino Park and -Ride, Apple Valley Transit Center,
480 Express Service: Downtown St. Paul, Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan
Eagan Transit Station
The Eagan Transfer Station is located at CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob Road) and Yankee Doodle Road
at the I -35E interchange. In 2007 this facility has 679 parking spaces, which were approximately
60 percent utilized in 2007. The following routes stop at this facility:
445 Local /suburb to suburb service: Eagan, Bloomington, Mall of America Station
446 Local/suburb to suburb service: Eagan, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis (46 Street
LRT Station)
470 Commuter Service: Downtown Minneapolis, South Minneapolis (I- 35W/Lake
Street), Eagan (Blackhawk Park and -Ride, and Eagan Transit Center)
480/484 Express Service: Downtown St. Paul, Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 3
157 Street Station Park and -Ride
The 157 Street Station Park and -Ride facility is located on Pilot Knob Road between CSAH 46
(160 Street) and 157 Street. This facility has 258 parking spaces, which were approximately
10% utilized in 2007. The following routes stop at this route:
420 Local /flex route: Apple Valley, Rosemount
477 Minneapolis Express: Apple Valley, Apple Valley Transit Center, Downtown
Minneapolis
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 4
APPENDIX B
UPA Funding Information
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 5
-O O cn O to O L U E t� E O o
0 L i0 c6 O c0 E L ca N m
E_o o o �c�
oo3 a 0
E O a c ca c6 O 0 O U p
L C L a) a) O- E L. V C N to Ca
CO 5 0 0 O C O C) (D c0 'S CIS Q r0
Q .O 'V o c (a U N o U C co
M a c O L O C (n D c6 o CO D ,C 0 0
O T O
O
O c0 c
m
P m a) p H O rn c O E N m CD o
o 2a 2
0
ao c
0 co
c L
ca c
H E
O L
O
O 'C
U 7
c y
E c 0
a`o .6,
a o 0
a) a) a
U
T
0 as -a O)
O E m o
CD Ca O
0
C o O. U
C 2
c o cc C/D rri
Y
ao
O E 2
c a) a
o g a E
U
c rn a>
C co C y 0)
In U_
O co C
O U CL I 0 Q
0) te- g u-,
Q). Q C
0) a c
a,o(0a
c C O vi O E O is 0,,< c a) a>
'Q Y E Cc E L O g C L
O T �om 2 a<2
a'� c o-- o CD rta c cc
p_ c0 O O U a)
a>�c•a� 0 U v Q) ca
o c
L N a) d N O) N fl C 0 f-O L o cff
N a) a)
2 1— h N C
�tOO' U .�3Q
E
O a) -0 0( U cam Q O V O
O Cl. 0 U O a) 2 "n c N O W s
1 c c ac W 1-1 ca E v cv.- c'
c cc o.2 O m N a> m� o .0 'b
____2 F= .2 U o p c-> E.5 x'o' c
U c a)Ooo O a>
0 (0 o cc E co 0- a) ro flij
C2 Y� N� a)
aT z O o C OD c c LL O a)
C�O �OQU> CL 0 Op a a) a) cd O L a) U U c0 a)
m o c o Q i
'a2 25- 0 a) N a0
E E Q O c C C U E L p O IT--
•n
C C f O L rn _O> 0° E u> 8 m
p =a> Tau)n rn�°'mcy
C C
O Q) c0 O O C~ c c a) U Q F_ c
cs) O
a�i co c 2C v _2,c6 E va
—E a> 'y Qa Q roO t E
a) 0- c a o .0 d 0 0 0. '15
I o v HHVWmD
0 CO N 73 W
U7 C U d O
CZ (d 0 u) d
al
+E' V1
O o N Cn
O"O a) O C 17
E c c m o m
as o ca
c c c S ro
N o o �i _c J c o
c 'Ch N o,- w d p a o0
CO c� C C Y H< C ii N
C O.N N C W u. o- 0 u c, o
C7 77 U C 0 -f.: Q Q M -c co U v)
U .2). BUJ to O,c 12 cv c
C O O 7 O O O O O C O O .O
ro E 0 g O Y c CG
it'', E c ON �tA lf)NM O OCp O C ENS •Q HnO p EIS m
d cOd T �O N T O O
cca Mo o, 0) o ui E o E 4 E E- vcc6e5 E o cd� ory cn
J 7 c1' CO 69 O C N 64 EA 69 CO CO N 7 to E c0 6f? 6f3 to 6 T Ea E EA- 64
69- EH L 6 d9 EA
co c
V Na)M T a0
Q T
CO a) U C
C I.- C b T 69- 6R
c U 715 6R
o y E 1,
c
c -oa o E 0 a m c m
E c
3 c c c
n o
a) a) I E a) o a) E
1 O
2 vi c- E c iri iri coy
m in -O U) E off
c c 5 c 0 c 7 .j c a Es
U O ai O C E o
U 0 a) E O v m
o a ...0 T d -8 v E ca-8 Q 0 cC
U as
ro HWCC m aco H� V 2 Hu C C 2 HLL
U N 0 C -o N
C O
O U N U .Q N N 0 m 'O -O C f�
C C c N •D o cC to O J O .O
CT O O o co _6 co v L '1 d Q a C O
--OC c cn W a
C ii) co C c v m d m wQ �S
to a) c0 0 r- C (A .0 H Q O) c
N L U ca O 4) p Q c c n. Q o C O p U
C) O o, a o "5 05 =v)cci o N 0
ii; U t a p H ;a c p c c m p c
0) c mz-0 c c .5 c o t o' o
3 c c 0 cP- E 2 E't-'EC� E E
c 0
coS m a c c v E y c caoNCn c c r^
"o C C L0 X C C CO O C O O C C N O (D I� .0 O N
2 E E m s c :-.7- E E c c EEE- -EE=L v) EE 6f36!}E 6r�
C ECO V p O Evs- co a �to it as c Nd
V N N
it C 49. 6f3 (.F)- (O ca co O O M co ff} m C V M 69- f!9 641 N N E+4 b9 69 EH y •0) 69. 6i?
C O N ,r
c� E
0 O to N a) Q y a, d v
L 7 Ye c C 6
11 C a Y 1.. lei 9 mo
t6 C w U O C 1 U a) O C
N- a) u t a a) 1 U a) I a) a)
C (x N co C N C O a; if; "O U) U a) 0 OO 7 W (,f p co
'6
C� (S L v, "O C- C- C- C a) N L j 1017
H e o N O O 15 N O O p O a) O in
0° U (a a) OC U
L U c UO a)
Ua)�a) Uro a)
p v) c V m e rn 'F- U a a)
O f •7 O' a) C tri "O Q Ti N "O O" T 0 "O '7 'd 0- s
:E co .5 a) 2 0 H o 1 ii C C 2 D H c i CCC 2 Q m m I— LL
CC
N
a
C C 7
E o E
co a) ca
ca t ai
5 a
U c N
c E it N co -o a
mT
o•.:
0 O
a a; a) Lo M o o' 0 o m
a: �r 03 a) a) m c�O 0 c E a) r`
c c O N N U C a 0 V�' N
oL N O a E a ro CNN
U r F c� a) a) w o c .0
o c
c c m a) 0U E
as 0 m O 0 V) c o o a)
7) 2 o r Q o Q c2 a) ai..�
o 2 ca c 'c CD 0 00) c co
c as E E `m �c°n os E
2<2MCnaLLw 2m coTccaLLW
c a) E
0
0
a 0
x
a) a) a)
a ca a
a) N U
C
N N
cQ fn
co
c O U
U i
am a
N
C O O c) N
C
a C o rr, as
c 0 C
U IL CD v)
C
a)_ ca c
Y xx
0
C a) a)
O a C
O
"a C
a) o oa
a c O
a) c O
C .2 u)
rn a12
yi ai 0
c-•� vc
c c c
r— N 7
°0 2 7 2
�c of
o H a I-
c c
((1)
c ti
O
c U
O 0
m
o E c
N a)
c 00 EA`�
c 6.9-- W
a
E c
co 8 E s
(24 N
O c
0
N
C
a k
C
C CO
0
c Uv
0
g0 c o
.N O
C O _0
a•E E �a i
as T M. O
69 Ef3 L O.
0
Q
0
c
E
a)
a)
Q
Q
O
c
a c
o
a.
o c
0
a)
CL 0
'0
m
a)
a>
C7
oo00o0000
0
o
0
00
00000000
00000000000
000000000
000000
0
0
0
000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0000000000
0
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
c
E
a)
a)
Q
Q
O
c
a c
o
a.
o c
0
a)
CL 0
'0
m
a)
a>
C7
oo00o0000
0
00000000
000000000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0000000000
0
1
Q
0
c
E
a)
a)
Q
Q
O
c
a c
o
a.
o c
0
a)
CL 0
'0
m
a)
a>
C7
oo00o0000
0 0 0 00 00 00
000000000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Q
0
c
E
a)
a)
Q
Q
O
c
a c
o
a.
o c
0
a)
CL 0
'0
m
a)
a>
C7
APPENDIX C
CTIB Joint Powers Agreement
Rosemount Transit Plan DRAFT 6
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
ESTABLISHING THE
COUNTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT BOARD
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the undersigned
metropolitan counties, all being political subdivisions of the State of Minnesota, by and
through their respective governing bodies pursuant to the authority contained in the
Minn. Stat. 471.59 and 297A.992.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature has, by Laws of Minnesota 2008 Chapter
152, Article 4, Section 2, codified as Minn. Stat. 297A.992, authorized metropolitan
counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington to impose
a one quarter percent sales and use tax, and an excise tax of $20 per motor vehicle
purchased or acquired from any person engaged in the business of selling motor
vehicles at retail "Sales Tax following the formation of a joint powers board by
agreement among the counties; and
WHEREAS, the metropolitan counties are committed to the development of a
system of transitways to better serve the residents and businesses of the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area and to efficiently move people and goods throughout the region; and
WHEREAS, the proceeds of the Sales Tax will be used to enhance and improve
the transitway system and not supplant state and regional obligations, as required by
Minn. Stat. 297A.992; and
WHEREAS, the Counties intend that, in accordance with Minn. Stat. 297A.992,
subd. 6, the Sales Tax proceeds will be made available for the development and
operation of transitways, including rail and bus rapid transit projects, serving the
residents and businesses of the Metropolitan Transportation Area, as defined below; and
WHEREAS, the Counties intend that the Board, as defined below, shall endeavor
to award grants to promote geographic equity over time with respect to investments in
transitways to implement the Counties' regional vision; and
WHEREAS, the metropolitan counties wish to collaborate on the planning,
implementation and funding of such transitway improvements through the joint powers
board created herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and benefits that
each party shall derive herefrom, the Parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to form a joint powers board to enable the
Parties to impose (1) a transportation sales and use tax, and (2) a motor vehicle excise
tax, with the taxes to fund transportation improvements, including debt service on
obligations issued to finance such improvements. In addition, the purpose of the
Agreement is to establish a joint powers board to receive and distribute funding for
1
transportation improvements in the metropolitan transportation area in accordance with
Minn. Stat. 297A.992.
ARTICLE 1I. ELIGIBLE COUNTIES AND TERM OF AGREEMENT
1. Eligible Counties.
The metropolitan counties that are eligible to participate in this Agreement
include the following:
2. Effective Date.
County of Anoka
County of Dakota
County of Ramsey
County of Washington
County of Carver
County of Hennepin
County of Scott
This Agreement shall be effective and the joint powers board established herein
may commence exercising the powers and authorities in this Agreement on the day that
the Agreement has been approved by resolution and duly executed by at least two of the
metropolitan counties listed above and shall continue until terminated as provided
herein. The eligible counties that have entered into this Agreement shall individually and
collectively be referred to as the "Counties" or the "Parties
3. Action Required to Become a Party.
An eligible county may become a Party to this Agreement by: (1) adopting a
resolution, declaring its intent to become a part of the metropolitan transportation area,
as defined in Minn. Stat. 297A.992, subd. 1(1), (the "Metropolitan Transportation
Area (2) entering into this Agreement, as it may be amended from time to time; and (3)
imposing the taxes authorized by Minn. Stat. 297A.992, subd. 2, in accordance with
the terms of this Agreement.
4. Parties Joining After July 1, 2008.
Any eligible county that becomes a Party to this Agreement after July 1 2008
shall pay (1) all costs attributable to the County for imposing the Sales Tax in that
County, and (2) the County's proportionate share (based upon most current Sales Tax
revenue projections by the Minnesota Department of Revenue on July 1, 2008) of the
amount paid to the Metropolitan Council pursuant to Minn. Stat, 297A.992, subd. 5(h).
Payments will be made in accordance with Section VI1.2.G. of this Agreement.
ARTICLE III. JOINT POWERS BOARD
1. Establishment and Composition.
A. The Parties hereby: establish a joint powers board to be known as the
Counties Transit Improvement. Board "Board to jointly exercise such powers and
authorities as are necessary to achieve its purposes and fulfill its duties as provided for
2
in Article IV, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Board shall be a
separate public entity separate from the Parties and shall not be deemed to be an agent
or partner of the Parties to this Agreement, the Metropolitan Council, or any grantee, nor
shall the Parties be liable for the actions of the Board, the Metropolitan Council or any
grantee.
B. The Board shall consist of two county commissioner(s) appointed by the
County Board of each of the Parties and shall also include the Chair of the Metropolitan
Council. The County Board of each Party shall appoint, by resolution, its two
representative county commissioners and one or more alternate county commissioners
to the Board. In the absence of an appointed county commissioner at a meeting, an
alternate county commissioner may exercise the voting rights of the County. In the
absence of the Chair of the Metropolitan Council at a meeting, the Vice -Chair of the
Metropolitan Council may exercise the voting rights of the Chair.
2. Voting.
A. Board voting will be weighted based upon Sales Tax revenue and
population information generated in accordance with Section III.2.E. There shall be five
(5) votes allocated to the Chair of the Metropolitan Council and ninety -five (95) votes
allocated among the Counties as follows, subject to reallocation of the votes over time in
accordance with Section III.2.E.
B. Each County will receive votes equal to the average of the County's
proportionate share of the total population and Sales Tax of the Parties multiplied times
ninety -five, and rounded to the nearest whole number, but in no event shall the total
votes be in excess of, or less than, one hundred (100).
C. Each County Commissioner appointed to the Board may cast one -half of
the County's allocated votes. In the event that only one County Commissioner_
representative is present at a meeting, that Commissioner may cast all of the County's
allocated votes.
D. All actions of the Board require a super- majority vote of the Board, unless
otherwise provided in this Agreement. A super majority of votes shall be defined as: (1)
63 of the 100 of the allocated votes in favor of the action, and (2) at least a simple
majority of the County Commissioner representatives on the Board (based on 1 /2 vote per
County Commissioner representative) voting in favor of the action. In the event that only
one County Commissioner representative is present at a meeting, that Commissioner
may cast both of the County's one -half votes.
E. Allocation of the ninety -five (95) County votes for the period beginning
from the effective date of this Agreement to January 1, 2012 ("Initial Period shall be
based upon most current Sales Tax revenue projections by the Minnesota Department
of Revenue and the most current population estimate by the Metropolitan Council
available as of the first meeting of the Board. The Board shall reallocate the County
votes in the same manner as stated above, upon the addition as a Party to this
Agreement of an eligible county, after the effective date, but during the Initial Period.
Beginning on January 1, 2012, the Board shall reallocate the County votes every four
years based upon average Sales Tax revenue and average population estimates
generated in the previous four years for each of the Parties. The Board shall recalculate
3
the allocation of County votes in the same manner upon entry of an eligible county after
the Initial Period, except that the portion of Sales Tax attributable to the newly joining
county for purposes of reallocating votes shall be based upon Sales Tax revenue
projections for such county.
1. General Powers.
The Board is hereby authorized to exercise such powers granted under the
provisions of Minn. Stat. 297A.992 and 471.59 and such other statutory authority held
in common by the Parties, that are necessary and proper to fulfill its purposes and
perform its duties. Such powers shall include those specific powers enumerated in
Section 2 of this Article.
2. Specific Powers.
ARTICLE IV. POWERS OF THE BOARD
A. The Board may enter into any contract necessary or proper for the
exercise of its powers or the fulfillment of its duties and enforce such contracts to the
extent available in equity or at law. The Board may approve any contract relating to its
administration up to the amount approved in the annual administrative budget, and may
authorize the Chair of the Board, or such other officer as designated in the by -laws to act
in the absence of the Chair, to execute those contracts.
B. The Board may award and enter into contracts necessary or proper for
the exercise of its powers or the fulfillment of its duties and enforce such contracts to the
extent available in equity or at law.
C. No payment on any invoice for services performed by a consultant or any
other person or organization providing services in connection with this Agreement shall
be authorized unless approved by the Chair (as hereinafter defined) or such officer
designated by the Board to approve such payments.
D. The Board may employ agents and employees, and fix their
compensation and all other terms and conditions of employment.
E. The Board shall have the power to adopt such by-laws that it may deem
necessary or desirable for the conduct of its business. Such by -laws shall be consistent
with this Agreement and any applicable laws or regulations. The by -l may provide for
the appointment by the Board of ex officio, non voting members to the Board, including
county commissioners from metropolitan counties that are not Parties to this Agreement.
F. A quorum of the Board shall be a simple, majority of the votes of the
Board, provided that at least 60 %0 of the .Counties are represented at the meeting.
G. The Board may apply for and accept gifts, grants or loans of money, other
property or assistance from the United States Government, the State of Minnesota, or
any person, association, or agency for any of its purposes; enter into any agreement in
connection therewith; and hold, use, and dispose of such money, other property or
assistance in accordance with the terms of the gift, grant or loan relating thereto.
4
H. The Board may acquire, lease, hold, use, and dispose of property, both
real and personal, including transfer of property from a County or another political
subdivision, to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement and upon termination of this
Agreement, shall make distribution of such property as is provided for in this Agreement.
The Board may sue and be sued in its own name, purchase insurance as
is deemed advisable, and may otherwise take action to enforce its rights in equity or in
law.
J. The Board may incur debts, liabilities, or obligations in accordance with
the provisions of this Agreement.
ARTICLE V. OFFICERS AND STRUCTURE OF JOINT POWERS BOARD
1. Terms.
A. The County Board of each County shall appoint two representatives and
one or more alternates, by resolution, to serve on the Board for an initial term
commencing with the execution of the Agreement until January 15, 2010.
Representatives and alternates must be members of the appointing County Board.
B. Thereafter, each representative and alternate shall be appointed for one
year terms, beginning January 15, by resolution of the County Board. In the event that
any representative or alternate shall not have been appointed by January 15 in any year,
the incumbent representative shall serve until a successor has been appointed.
Removal of any representative or alternate during the term for which the representative
has been appointed may be done at any time but shall be done only by resolution of the
appointing County Board.
2. Chair and Vice Chair.
The Board shall elect a chair (the "Chair and a vice chair (the "Vice Chair") from
its membership at its first regular meeting. The Chair and Vice Chair shall be elected by
the Board from its membership for a one -year term. The Chair and the Vice Chair may
not be from the same County. The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Board and
shall perform other duties and functions as may be determined by the Board. The. Vice
Chair shall preside over and act for the Board during the absence of the Chair. If both
the Chair and Vice Chair are absent, the Board may elect a temporary chair to conduct
its business, provided a quorum is present. The Board may elect other officers in
accordance with its by -laws.
3. GEARS Committee.
A. Pursuant to the requirements of Minn. Stat. 297A.992, subd. 5, the
Board shall establish a Grant Evaluation and Ranking System "GEARS committee
which must consist of:
1) one County Commissioner from each County that is in the
Metropolitan Transportation Area, appointed by its County Board;
5
2) one elected city representative from each County that is in the
Metropolitan Transportation Area;
3) one additional elected city representative from each County for
every additional 400,000 in population, or fraction of 400,000, in the County that
is above 400,000 in population; and
4) the chair of the Metropolitan Council Transportation Committee.
B. Each city representative must be elected at a meeting of cities in the
Metropolitan Transportation Area, which must be convened for that purpose by the
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities.
C. The GEARS committee shall evaluate grant applications following
objective criteria established by the joint powers board, and must provide to the joint
powers board a selection list of transportation projects that includes a priority ranking.
D. The membership of the GEARS committee shall conform to Minn. Stat.
297A.992, subd. 5, as it may be amended from time to time.
4. Other Committees.
A. The Board shall establish such other committees as may be required by
law.
B. The Board may establish a technical advisory group pursuant to the
provisions of Minn. Stat. §.297A.992, subd. 4(c).
C. The Board may establish standing committees of the Board. The Chair
may establish ad hoc committees of the Board.
5. Vacancies.
If an appointment of any representative or alternate is vacated before the end of
the term, the vacancy shall be filled by appointment by the appropriate County Board.
Vacancies shall be filled within thirty (30) days of their occurrence. A vacancy shall be
deemed to have occurred when any of the conditions specified in Minn. Stat. 351.02
exist, or if a representative fails to qualify or act as an elected official.
6. Meetings.
The Board shall meet at regular intervals at such times and places as the Boar
shall establish in its by -laws. Special meetings may be held on reasonable notice by the
Chair or any two .Parties upon terms and conditions as the Board may determine and
that conform to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat Chapter 13D.
6
ARTICLE VI. ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET AND FUNDING
1. Administrative Budget.
A. The Board shall adopt an annual administrative budget, together with a
statement of the sources of funding and an estimate of the proportion of such amounts, if
any, required of each Party.
B. The Board shall approve a preliminary administrative budget for the
succeeding fiscal year by no later than July 1 of each year. The Board may utilize the
proceeds of the taxes imposed pursuant to Minn. Stat. 297A.992 for administrative
costs only to the extent authorized by Minn. Stat. 297A.992, subd. 4 (b). Any
additional administrative expenses must be paid by the Counties. In the event that the
administrative budget exceeds the allowable use of Sales Tax proceeds, the preliminary
administrative budget shall include a cost sharing formula allocating the additional
amounts to the Counties "County's Administrative Share Counties shall pay the
County's Administrative Share in accordance with Sec. 2.B.
C. The Board shall adopt a final administrative budget and costs sharing
formula by no later than August 30 of each year.
D. The final administrative budget and cost sharing formula shall be
forwarded to each Party's governing body for approval if the administrative budget
exceeds the allowable use of Sales Tax proceeds.
E. The fiscal year shall be the same as a calendar year.
F. No County shall have a financial obligation to fund the County's
Administrative Share unless such County's governing body has approved the annual
final administrative budget and cost sharing formula.
2. Administrative Funding.
It is understood by the Parties that the administrative activities and duties of the
Board are to be funded primarily by Sales Tax proceeds collected pursuant to Minn.
Stat. 297A.992. Nevertheless, each Party agrees to contribute $50,000 as an initial
contribution for the start-up administrative expenses of the Board. The Board will
establish an initial budget and agree to the allocation of any additional necessary initial
administrative contributions, subject to the approval of each County board. Each County
shall pay its appropriate initial contribution to the County acting as fiscal agent of the
Board or to the Trustee, as defined in Article VII. 1, as directed by the Board, within 30
days of execution of this Agreement. Initial contributions shall be reimbursed to the
Counties upon receipt of Sales Tax proceeds.
year.
A. Initial Administrative Funding.
B. Time of Payment for County's Administrative Share.
A County's Administrative Share shall be paid to the Board by June 1 of each
7
C. Budgeting and Accounting Services.
The Board may contract with one of the Counties to provide any and all
budgeting and accounting services necessary or convenient for the Board's
administrative budget. Such services may include, but not be limited to: management of
all funds, including County contributions and grant monies; payment for contracted
services; and relevant bookkeeping and recordkeeping.
D. Accountability for Funds.
All funds shall be accounted for according to generally accepted accounting
principles. A report on all receipts and disbursements shall be forwarded to the Board
on an annual basis. The Counties have, at any time, the authority to request and
receive reports pertaining to any and all budgeting and accounting services. All interest
earned from established Board funds shall be credited back to that same fund.
ARTICLE VII. GRANT MANAGEMENT
1. Receipt of Funds and Financial Management
The Board shall contract with a trustee for the purpose of receipt and
disbursement,of Sales Tax proceeds and other funds "Trustee The Board may
further utilize the Trustee for financial management. Each County shall impose one
hundred percent (100 of the Sales Tax required under Minn. Stat. 297A.992 and
shall direct the Minnesota Department of Revenue to remit the Sales Tax proceeds, less
administrative expenses allowable to the Department of Revenue by statute, to the
Trustee or as otherwise directed by the Board, with the Sales Tax first pledged to pay
debt service on outstanding bonds, if any, authorized and issued .pursuant to Article Vlll.
2. Criteria for Award of Grants
The Board shall establish criteria for the award of grants that shall include, but
not be limited to:
A. Grant awards shall be ,consistent with the most recent version of the
Metropolitan Council's Transportation Policy Plan.
B. Grant awards shall maximize the availability and use of federal .funds.
C. No grant award made to the Metropolitan Council may supplant .operating
or capital funding provided to. the Metropolitan Council byy the state.
D.' No grant award made to the Metropolitan Council may supplant the .50%
state share of the non federal operating subsidy for light rail and commuter rail
operations.
E. No grant award shall be made for operating costs of a transitway (except
for the Hiawatha Light Rail Project, the Northstar Commuter Rail Project, Cedar Avenue
Bus Rapid Transit Project, and the 35W Bus Rapid Transit Project from downtown
8
Minneapolis south) unless the Board has previously awarded a grant for the capital costs
of the transitway project.
F. No grant award shall be made for capital costs of a transitway project
unless there is a 10% local match for the transitway project. A local match is defined as
dollars that are not provided by the state, the Metropolitan Council, or the federal
government.
G. Any grant awards made to an eligible county that joins the Board after
July 1, 2008 shall be made only for purposes of paying that eligible county's obligation
set forth in Article 11.4, until such time as said obligation has been satisfied.
H. Notwithstanding the restrictions of paragraph E above, each County shall
be awarded annual grants of at least 1% of the total Sales Tax proceeds for each of the
fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, for
minimum guarantee counties, as the term is defined in Minn. Stat. 297A.922, subd. 1
(4), for fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011, the grant awards shall be the greater of 1% of
the total Sales Tax proceeds or the minimum guarantee amount provided for in Minn.
Stat. 297A.992, subd. 6.
3. Timeline and Procedure for Award of Grants.
The Board shall establish timelines and procedures for the award of grants in
accordance with Minn. Stat. 297A.992. Award of grants shall be by action of the
Board.
1. Debt Obligations.
ARTICLE VIII. DEBT OBLIGATIONS
The Board may incur debt obligations necessary to accomplish its purposes that
are consistent with law and the financial policies established by the Board in accordance
with this Article VIII.
The Board may authorize a County or regional railroad authority (a "Rail
Authority wholly within the Metropolitan Transportation Area to issue and sell
obligations and pledge to such County or Rail Authority the Sales Tax remitted to the
Trustee on behalf of the Board hereunder.
Debt obligations authorized or issued pursuant to this Article VIII may be:
a. limited obligations payable solely from or secured by Sales Tax revenues and
other separately pledged revenues and issued by the Board, a County or a Rail
Authority; provided that any entity separately pledging non -Sales Tax revenue has acted
by resolution of its governing body to so pledge; or
b. general obligations secured by the full faith, credit and taxing power of a
County and issued by a County; provided that a County has acted by resolution of its
governing body to so pledge its full faith, credit and taxing power.
9
2. Vote Required.
The Board may incur or authorize debt obligations with both a maturity in excess
of five years and an amount in excess of the total Sales Tax proceeds projected for the
next twelve -month period, only by a vote of (1) 75 of the 100 allocated votes in favor of
the action, and (2) at least a simple majority of the County Commissioner
representatives voting in favor of the action. All other debt obligations shall be incurred
or authorized by action of the Board in accordance with Section III.2.D.
For purposes of determining whether a majority of County Commissioner
representatives have voted in favor of an action under this Article, each County
Commissioner representative shall have one -half vote. In the event that only one
County Commissioner representative is present at a meeting, that Commissioner may
cast both of the County's one -half votes.
3. Apportionment of Responsibility.
Prior to the issuance of any debt obligation, the Board shall identify each
County's portion of the debt obligation for purpose of apportionment in the event a Party
withdraws pursuant to Article IX.
4. Cooperation.
The Board and the Counties agree to provide such resolutions, representations,
certifications and other agreements as may be reasonably required by bond counsel to
provide for the issuance and sale of such debt obligations; provided that no such action
shall require a County to pledge its full faith, credit and taxing power to secure debt
obligations issued or authorized hereunder; nor shall such action require a public entity
to separately pledge non -Sales Tax revenue to secure debt obligations issued or
authorized hereunder.
ARTICLE IX. WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION
1. Withdrawal of a County Before Final Termination.
A. Withdrawal of a County. Any County may withdraw from this
Agreement upon the following conditions: a) giving three years' notice prior to June 30
of the intended year of withdrawal by written notice to the Board, and b) showing that all
amounts due and owing have been paid or will be paid prior to termination of the Sales
Tax pursuant to Section IX.1.C. Such amounts shall include the withdrawing County's
portion of all outstanding debt obligations issued pursuant to Article VIII and such other
obligations as are determined by unanimous vote of the County Commissioner
representatives on the Board.. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the Chair of the
Board of a certified copy of a resolution of its governing body indicating its intent to
withdraw from this Agreement. Upon receipt of the resolution, the Chair. of the Board
shall forward a copy of the resolution to each of the Counties. In the event of withdrawal
by any County, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as to all remaining
Counties.
10
B. Effect of Notice of Withdrawal. Upon the effective date of a County's
notice of withdrawal, the withdrawing County's representatives may not vote on the
issuance or authorization of debt obligations pursuant to Article VIII of this Agreement,
nor shall the Board apportion to the withdrawing County any debt obligation incurred or
authorized after the effective date of a County's notice of withdrawal. The County's
representatives may vote on all other matters until the effective date of withdrawal. In
the event that a County rescinds its notice of withdrawal prior to the effective date of
withdrawal, the Board shall reapportion any debt obligation incurred or authorized after
the effective date of a County's notice of withdrawal to include that County.
C. Effect of Withdrawal. Withdrawal by any County shall not terminate this
Agreement except as provided in Section 2.A. herein. Withdrawal shall not act to
discharge the withdrawing County from liability incurred or chargeable to the withdrawing
County before the effective date of withdrawal. Such liability shall continue until
appropriately discharged by law or agreement. No County shall be entitled to a refund of
any part of the County's Administrative Share that has been paid to the Board, or receive
forgiveness of any part of the County's Administrative Share still owing to the Board, or
receive any Sales Tax revenues that have been pledged.
D. Termination of Taxes. The taxes imposed under Minn. Stat. 297A.99,
subdivision 1, by a County that withdraws from this Agreement, shall terminate.only
when the Party has satisfied its portion of all outstanding debt obligations, as defined in
Article VIII of this Agreement, or other obligations as determined by unanimous vote of
the County Commissioner representatives on the Board.
A withdrawing County shall not be deemed to have satisfied its portion of all
outstanding debt obligations unless:
(1) an independent accountant or independent financial advisor, acceptable to
the Board, has provided a written opinion or report stating that the withdrawing Party has
satisfied its share of outstanding bonds or debt obligations;
(2) bond counsel, acceptable to the Board, has provided a written opinion stating
that the withdrawal of the Party does not affect the security for or tax exempt status of
the outstanding bonds or debt obligations; and
(3) the Board accepts these opinions and reports.
2. Termination.
A. Events Resulting in Termination. This Agreement shall terminate upon
the occurrence of any one of the following events:
1) When necessitated by operation of law or as a result of a decision
by a court of competent jurisdiction.
2) When all the Parties agree, by resolution adopted by the
respective governing bodies, to terminate this Agreement, and all obligations of
the Board shall have been paid or otherwise defeased in full.
11
B. Effect of Termination. Termination shall not discharge any liability
incurred by the Board or by the Parties during the term of this Agreement.
C. Termination of Taxes. If the Agreement is terminated, the Sales Tax
imposed under Minn. Stat. 297A.99, subdivision 1, at the time of termination of the
Agreement will terminate in accordance with Minn. Stat. 297A.99, subd. 12, only when
all outstanding bonds or obligations are satisfied. The auditors of the Counties in which
the taxes are imposed shall see to the administration of this paragraph.
D. Disposition of Property and Funds. Property or surplus money
acquired by the Board shall be sold and proceeds distributed to the Counties in
proportion to contributions of the Counties or as agreed to by the Board, provided that
the Counties shall not be entitled to receive any Sales Tax revenues that have been
pledged. No distribution pursuant to this section shall inure to the benefit of any private
person. The Board shall approve a final report of its activities and affairs and, on the
expiration of thirty (30) days therefrom, shall cease to exist.
ARTICLE X. NOTICES
For purposes of delivery of any notices to the Parties hereunder, the notice shall
be effective if delivered in writing to:
Anoka County: County Administrator
Anoka County Government Center
2100 Third Avenue
Anoka, MN 55303
Carver County: County Administrator
Carver County Government Center
600 East 4th Street
Chaska, MN 55318
Dakota County: County Administrator
Dakota County Government Center
1590 Highway 55
Hastings, MN 55033
Hennepin County: County Administrator
A -2300 Hennepin County Government Center
300 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55487
Ramsey County: County Manager
Ramsey County Court House
15 W. Kellogg Blvd., Room 250
Saint Paul, MN 55102
12
Scott County:
Washington County:
1. Responsibility for Own Acts and Omissions.
Each Party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and omissions, the
acts and omissions of its commissioners, officers and employees and any liability
resulting therefrom to the extent authorized by law. No Party shall be responsible for the
acts of the other Parties and the results thereof. Each Party acknowledges and agrees
that it is insured or self- insured consistent with the limits established in Minnesota State
Statute. Each Party agrees. to promptly notify all Parties if it becomes aware of any
potential Board related claim(s) or facts giving rise to such claims.
2. No Waiver.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the terms of this Agreement are not to be
construed as, nor operate as, waivers of a Party's statutory or common law immunities
or limitations on liability, including, but not limited to, Minn. Stat. Chap. 466. Further, the
Party's obligations set forth in this Article and otherwise in this Agreement, are expressly
limited by the provisions of Minn. Stat. Chap. 466, Minn. Stat. 471.59, and any other
applicable law or regulation providing limitations, defenses or immunities to the Parties
and to the Board.
1. Amendments.
County Administrator
Scott County Government Center
200 Fourth Ave West
Shakopee, MN 55379
County Administrator
Washington County Government Center
14949 62nd Street North
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 -0006
2. Records, Accounts and Reports.
ARTICLE XI. LIABILITY
ARTICLE XII. MISCELLANEOUS
This Agreement may be amended only by unanimous agreement of the Parties
as evidenced by resolutions adopted by their respective governing bodies.
A. The Board shall establish and maintain such funds and accounts as may
be required by good accounting practices. The books and records of the Board shall be
subject to the provisions of Minn. Stat. Chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act, and Minn. Stat. 16C.05, subd. 5. The Board, within one hundred and
twenty (120) days after the close of each fiscal year, which shall be January 1 to
December 31, shall give a complete written report of all financial activities for such fiscal
year to the parties.
13
B. As required by Minn. Stat. 297A.992, subd. 11, the Board shall report
annually by February 1 to the Minnesota House of Representatives and Senate
committees having jurisdiction over transportation policy and finance concerning the
revenues received and grants awarded.
3. Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same
instrument.
4. Severability.
The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any paragraph, section,
subdivision, sentence, clause, or phrase of the Agreement is for any reason held to be
contrary to law, or contrary to any rule or regulation having the force and effect of law,
such decision shall not affect the remaining portions of this Agreement.
5. Entire Agreement.
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties and
supersedes all prior written or oral agreements relating to the formation of the Board.
6. Alternative Dispute Resolution.
In the event of a dispute arising under this Agreement, the Parties and the Board
agree to attempt to resolve their dispute by following the process described below:
A._ AParty_ shall provide written notice the Board describing perceived
conflict, po and underlying reasons.
B. The Board or Party shall provide written response to notice within 7 days
of receipt of notice.
C. The Parties shall meet within 14 days of receipt of response with a neutral
facilitator. The neutral facilitator will be a representative from the Minnesota Office of
Dispute Resolution. Costs of such facilitator shall be shared equally by all parties to the
dispute.
D. At the first meeting, the neutral facilitator will assist the parties in,
identifying the appropriate parties and participants in the dispute resolution process, their
concerns, a meeting agenda and design for any subsequent meetings. The.: Parties shall
agree on a process for resolving the problem that would involve additional negotiations,
mediation or arbitration.
E. In developing the process,. the Parties will be guided by the following
principles:
1) The Parties will attempt in good faith to reach a negotiated
settlement.
14
2) The Parties agree that there must be fair representation of the
parties directly involved in the dispute.
3) The Parties will use legal proceedings as a last resort.
4) In the event the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute, each
Party retains all rights, remedies or defenses it had prior to entering the process,
except that each Party shall be responsible for its own attorney's fees and costs.
F. The Parties will report to the Board within 60 days of their first meeting on
the resolution of the dispute or a recommendation to commence legal proceedings.
The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.
15
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Joint Powers Agreement
Establishing the Counties Transit Improvement Board have hereunto set their hands on
the date written below:
16
0
T
cr
3
r
c
O. S.
CI or.
0
3
03
JQ
3
k
3
CU
3
3
ert
LAI
c
$q