HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.a. ISTEA - Funding Application Approval E J
CITY OF ROSII�iOUNT `
EXECIITIVE SZTt�lARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 6, 1993
AGENDA ITEM: ISTEA Funding Application AGENDA SECTTON:
Approval New Business
PREPARED BY: Bud Osmundson AGENDA NO.
City Engineer/Assistant Public Works Director
ATTACffi�lENT5: NII�TDOT Letter AP OVE _.BY:
This item is on the agenda for Council consideration of an a ication far
the Intermodal Surface Transportation EfficienCy Act (ISTEA) Enhancement
Funds . ISTEA is a broad based Federally funded transportatian impravement
program which has several categories or types of prajeets funded. One of
't e e s the Enhancement funds which are l00 of the ISTEA package.
Enhancement projects are those which augment or enhance our transportation
system. These could include projects such as pedestrian and bicycle paths,
historic or scenic areas or environmental enhancements, The foremost
criteria for this initiaT ISTEA Enhancement Solicitation Process is those
projects which can be completed in the 1994 calendar year.
Far Rosemount, w2 discussed a number of pzojects which could be considered
for Enhancement iurding. The most applicable project which could �e
constructed in the 1994 calendar year is a pro�ect as follows:
Construction of a bituminous path, decorative lighting and
landscaping along State Trunk Highway 3 from 143rd Street to the
new Community Center/Armory. In addition a pathway would �e
constructed from T.H. 3 to the proposed Ez�ickson Square Park
Building. Tne project would also include this park bui�.ding.
This project would meet many of the othAr ISTEA criteria. A major criteria
to be met are those prajects which include improvements which will bzr�e�it
more than one community. In this case the benefit is to all of Dakota
Caunty and the State in that we would be providing a °stap over" sight and
off-highway bikeway for Trunk Highway 3 which is considered a State Bicycle
Route. All�ro�ects approved_are 80o funded }av Federal funds with a 2Oo
local match. '�or� i"fi�'�s p`roject we believe we meet that cr�iteria very easily
due to the generosity of the Jaycees in their donation for the Park Shelter
and previously encumbered funds for this Park Shelter.
Applications for this initial year are to be sent in to the State by April
15 .
Council Member Klassen has volunteered to write the application for the
Grant, whieh is greatly appreciated by Staff. Staff recommends approval of
the application for this project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION TO APPROVE THE FUNDING APPLICATION FOR
THE INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT (ISTEA) .
COUNCIL ACTIE?S�I:
6
, �
t' '
K' � � . � . . , . . .
M11uteSOta
'. o��'� Departrnent of Transportation �
� � Transporta�on Building
��:,� 395 John Ireland Boulevard
Saint Paul,Minnesota 55155 ,
Pebruary 17, 1993 �
State Agency Commissioners
� County Board Chairs
City Administrators/Clerks �
Town Boazd Clerks .
RE: INTERIM SOLICTTATION PROCESS F4R ENHANCEMENTS PROJECTS.»IMMEDIATE ACTION
Deaz Public Officials:
� The purpose of this letter is to request the submittal of projects to be funded up to 80% by
federal Enhancements Funds. You should forward this solicitation to individuals in your
organization responsible for proposing and developing pro)ects a'hich are historic, scenic, or
�nvironmental in nature and or focus on facilities for bicycles or pedestrians. This project
solicitation is exclusively for Enhancements Funds. It is separate from and sho not be
confused with any other proJect solici ' c may consider similar I�nds of projects for'
use of other funding from the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA),
other federal acts, or state funded programs.
Enhancements funds are to be expended exclusively on ten activiaes (identified in the
attached materiaLs) which have been grouped in three project caxegories; 1) Pedestrian and
� Bicycle, 2) Historic, and 3) Scenic and Environmental. Enhancements Funds aze a portion
(10%) of the Surface Transportation Program under Title 1 of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 199 L
I am maldng this solicitation on behalf of the Enhancements Task Force. This task force is
comprised of representa.tives from thirteen public organizations. The task force was
established by Mn/DOT to r�commend a process IViinnesota should use to solicit,prioritize
anci select projects to be funded with Enhancements Funds.
The task force has developed an Interim Process which is being used far this solicitation.
. Experience gained from this solicitation will be used bY the task force to develop a Permanent
Process.
Minnesota will receive Enhancements Funds of about seven million dollars per year• This
solicitation using the Interim Process will be nsed to allo�ate about seven million dollars of
Enhancements Funds. It is expected that a first solicitation using tbe Permanent Process
will be made during the last quarter of calendar 1993. Federal law reQuires that every
project utilizing federal transPortation funds in wrbanized areas over 50,000 population be
included in that urbanized azea metropolitan planning organization's transportation
improvement program. Proposers of projects in affected areas should coordinate their
proposal(s) with the metropolitan planning organization.
�� , State Agency Commissioners .
County Board Chairs
,
City AdministratorsJClerks _ ,
Town Board Clcrks '
February 17, 1993 .
Page 2
The atta.ched maxeriats include a project application form, qualifying criteria, and prioritizing
criteria which will be used by the task force w review and prioritize your project proposal(s).
It is important that your proposal(s) specifically and directly address each criterion. Only the
information you provide specifically addressing any given criterion will be used to quali.fy
,
and award points to your project(s) regarding that criterion.
We have scheduled three project propaser forums. Thess forums will focus on providing
infoimatian to and responding to questions from potential project proposers abvut the process
and criteria being used. Fontms will be held in the following locations:
L Tuesday, March 9, 1:00 —4:00 -
Sawmill Inn, Rooms l and 2
2301 Pokegama Ave. S. (Hwy. 169 S.)
Grand Rapids, Minnesota
2. Wednesday, March 10, 1:00 — 4:00 �
Sunwood Inn
1010 W. Bandana Blvd.
(Between Snelling and Lexington along Energy Pazk Dr.)
SL Paul, Minnesota
3. Thursday, March 11, 1:4(} — 4:00
Minnesota Valley Regional Library Auditorium
100 East Main S� (Across from Holiday Inn) .
Mankato, Minnesota
I believe the information attached is fairly self explanatory. Should you have questions
please do not hesitate to call the Mn/DOT staff gerson who has been assigned to supgort the
task farce. His name is Brian Vollum. You can reach him by phone at (612) 296-I606.
Sincerely�
.. .
� �i� -
Merritt " e �/
Director
Office of Highway Programs
A�.... ` . . .. . . � . . . .
� � . . � . � � � .
� TRANSPORTATI4N.ENHANCEMENT FUND
APPLICATION
WSTRUCTIONS: Complete and retum 20 copies to Memtt Linzie, Director, Office of Highway �•�oMr
Programs, Room 807, Transportation Bidg., 395 John treland Btvd, St. Paui, MN
551�5, no later than 4:00 p.m., Apn'I 15, 1993. (612) 296-1638
- • • - • •
1. APPUCANT � 2. DATE
3. PROJECT/ROUTEfFAC1UTY NAME
4. MAILING ADDRESS
C1TY STATE ZIP CODE 5. COUNTY
6. CONTACT PERSON TtTLE PHONE NO.
� )
. � � _ , �
7. PROJECT CATEGORY - Chectc all boxes(py that apPN and indcase the project grouping(0)You wish your project to be scored in.
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCI.E GROUPING � HISTORIC GROUPING�
❑ Provision of Facii'�ties for Pedestrians and Bicycles ❑Historic Highway Programs
❑ Preservation of Abandoned Railway Corridors ❑ Historic Preservation
SCENIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPlNG � ❑ Rehabii'dation and Operation of Historic Transportation
❑Scenic Highway Programs Buiidings, Stn�ctures,or Facil'�ies (inciuding raiiroad
❑Acquisition of Scenic Easemerrts and Scenic Sites facilities and canals)
❑ Landscaping and Other Scenic Beautification ❑ Archaeotogical P(anning and Research
❑Control and Removal of Outdoor Acivertising
❑Mitigation of Water Pollution Due to Highway Funds
8.TOTAL PRWECT COST AND FEDERA�AMOUNT RECUESTED 9.L�CAL MATC1i AMOUNT, PERCENTAGE ANQ SOURCE
TOTAL ' FEDERAL AMOUNT $ PERCENT SOURCE
COST $ AMOUNT S
10.THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE REflUlRED
C1 Proie�c oeS��t��� ` NOTE: Proposals must specifically
0 Project Location Map(s) (Reproducble) '"�nd dl�eCt/y addr�''SS eaC/'I CCltellOt] fC�
qualify and receive points. Pages �n
❑ Respanse to Each Qua(ifying Criterian eaCh p10�?OSa/ ShOUId be' /7Uf11bEr@d
with this page as number 7. Proposals
❑ Response ta Each Prioritizing Criterion a�e l%R7%t2C/ f0 fEfl $% b)/ 1� %lfCt1 paC�'eS
� excluding maps drawings and or
photos.
11. SIGNATURE TiTL� DATE
�
: QUALIFYING CRI�TERIA
i. Projects which are eligible for Enhancements funds as defined in
the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA).
Discussion..,The ISTEA deftnes ten exclusive activities which qualify for
Enhancements funds. They are:
1) Provisiom of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles.
2) Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites.
3) Scenic or historic highway programs.
4) Landscaping and other scenic beautification.
5) Historic preservation.
6) Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings,
suuctures or facilities ('mciuding historic railroad facilities and canais).
7) Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion
and use thereof for pcciestrian or bicycle trails).
8) Cantrol and removal of outdoor advertising. .
9) Archaeological planning and researcho
10) Mitigation of water polludon due to highway runoff.
In Minncsota, these ten federal categories have been placed into three groups as follows:*
1) Historic...Acquisition of historic sites, historic highway programs,
historic preservation, rehabilitation and operation of historic .
transportation buildings, structures, or facilities, archaeological planning
and research.
2) Scenic and Environmental...Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic
-sites, scenic highway programs, landscaping and other scenic
beautification, control and removal of outdoor advertising, and
mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff. .
3) Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities...Provision of facilities for bicycles and
pedestrians, and preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including
the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian or bicycle trails).
*You must idenfify which of these groups you wish your project to be scored in. .
1
. . � . . � . . �. .
2. Projects with an assured 1oca1 (non federal funds} match of at least
20 percent of the estimated total cost of the proposed projec�t.
Discussion..,The ISTEA requires a non federal match of at least 20 percent of project
eosts. Assurance of this required local match by the proposer at the time of
application indicates a necessary level of support by the proposer to immediately
proceai with project development and implementation.
3. Projects for which the proposer assures it will operate and maintain
the property and facility for the useful life of the improvement and
not change tfie use of any right of way acquired without prior
approv�l from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the
Federal Highway Administration.�
Discussion...The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires that states agree to
operate and maintain faciliries constructed with federal transportation funds for the
useful life of the improvement and not change the use of any right of way acquired
without prior approval from the FHWA. For projccts implemented with Enhancements
funds this requirement should be applicd to the project proposer.
4. Projects submitted through/by: 1) cities over 5,000 population,
2) counties, or 3) state agencies.
Discussion...State statutes require that all federal funds received in the state of
Minnesota be received and disburs�d by the designated staxe agency. Under current
designation the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DO'1� must function as .
the administrator of these funds. Federal transportation funds, even though destined
for county or municipal projects, have been disburseci through the Mn/DOT Division
of State Aid. State Aid has historically worked exclusively with cities over 5,Q00
population and counties, because federal aid routes were only located there. With
ISTEA, projects within smaller cities and townships may now be eligible for
federal-aid. Hawever, State Aid is not staffed to handle the increased volume of
federal-aid pmjects that may resuit from the Transportation Enhancernents progrun.
Also, financial accounts and grocedures are not establish�d for srnaller cities and
townships, and the Attorney General believes it is inappropriate to use the State Aid
Accounts for processing projects from non-state aid agencies. Therefore, for the
duration of this interim program, all projects must be submitted through a
state-aid-eligible agency (cities over 5,000 or counties) ar through a staxe agency.
This requirement limits proposers to a discrete number of responsible parties and still
allows reasonable access to Enhancements funds throughout the state. Cities under
5,000 population, townships, neighborhood organizations and others will need to work
with and through larger cities, counties, or state agencies to propose projects.
Enhancements funds are available as a reimbursement program administered by the
FHWA. 'This reimbursement program requires that the staxe front end all eligible
project costs. The state is then reimbursed with federal highway funds for the federal
2
portion (up to 80 pacent af tatal expcnditures) of those expenditures for the projact
�> Minnesota has established an Agency Acconnt to fac�itate use of federal highway :'
funds by agencies other than the Minnesota Department of Transportation. This
Agency Account functians as a pool of money from which expenditures for project �
costs aze initially made. The pool is then reimbursed with federal funds. Without
access to this pool of funds in the Agency�Account, project proposers would need to
individually front end the entire cost of a project's estimated cost instead of only the
local share. The State Attorney General has ruled that only cities over 5,000
pvpulation, counties and state agencies may use the Agency Account
5. Projects with an estimated total cost of at least $50,000.
I7iscussion...There aze signif�cant federal project processing requirements that come
with federal funds. These requirements translate into exgenditures of time and rnoney
on ttie parts of both the agency proposingldeveloping the projeet and the state agency
administering the federal funds for the project, Project proposers can "bundle"
projects together to meet this minimum. For instance bundled projects could c.onsist
of signing and lighting a number of bike trails in several counties. Communities may
���- - - want to consider using joint powers agreements for impl�menting bundled pmjects.
6. Projects with a demonstrated relationship to transportation.
Discussion...Tlie ISTEA requu�es that Enhancements projects be related ta
transportation. The FHWA mcmorandum providing interim guidance states:
"The defrriit[on of transportatian enhancement activities includes the phrase, -
with respect to any project or the azea served by the project Given its overall
context, we interpret this phrase to mean that the proposed transportation .
enhancement activity must have a direct relationship to the interrnodal
transpartation system, but not necessarily to a currently planned highway
project. This relationship may be one of function, proximity, or impact. For
example, an independent bike path is a functional component of the intermodal
transportation systcm Removal of outdoor advertising in the viewshed of a
highway is justified in light of its roximi . Retrofitting an existing highway
by creating a wetland to filter runoff from the highway would qualify based on
the im�act of the highway in terms of water pollution. Once a rela�ionship to
the inteimodal transportation systern is established, transportation enhancement
activities can be implemented in a variety of ways. They can be developed as
parts of larger transportation projects, as parts of larger joint development
�projects, or as stand-alone projects."
3
, �
� 7. Projects which are normally part of the mitigation of a
� transportation project are not eligible. . ,
Discussion...The ISTEA requires that Enhancements funds not be used to implernent
mitigation of the adverse impacts associated with implementation of other
transportation projects. The origin of transportation environmental enhancement is the
FHWA Environmental Policy Statement issued in 1990. It states, "environmental
enhancement rneans going beyond mere mitigation w use all practicable measures to
harmoniously fit any proposed...projcct into the adjacent communities and natural
environment it traverses." This is an important point The F�iWA has emphasized
that enhancernent is not mitigation. Environmental measures conducted as routine or
customary elements of transportation projects or those provided to mitigate project
impacts in compliance with the requirements of environmental, historic preservation or
other laws aze not eligible for enhancement funding. With this interpretation, the
category mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff," would be limited to
�,
facilities and prograrns that aze in addition to cuirent requirements and procedures for
mitigation.
4
��oRrr� cRrrE�
1. The degree to which the proposed project fulfills the intent af the
ISTEA.
Discussion...It is important to implement quality projects. Relative to the ISTEA;
quality is defined by the declaration of policy included in the act:
"It is the policy of the United States to develop a National Intermodal Transportation
System that is ecvnomically efficient and cnvironmentally sound, provides the
foundation for the Nation to compete in a global economy, and will move people and
goods in an energy efficient manner."
The ISTEA links transportation plans prograrns and projects to the goals af preserving
community quality and protecting the environment Enhancements transportation
projects should provide leadership by example for this new direction in federal
transportation policy.
............�:,.,.,.,:,v;;::..
u:.::•;•.••. JS . v..,-,H,.i.i:ihii:�i:•X . �
. . �:`r� :: :: . . . . . . .... .. .
��✓V ��. ::. . .
- 2: Projects with components which have already been funded and/or
implemented from other funding sources, especially projects for
which the proposed Enhaneemenfis funded element would complete
a larger project, conc�pt, or plan. . �
Discussion...There may be a number of larger projects which aze missing a key or
final elemen� Funding these missing elements with Enhancements funds could
provide a sort of synergistic benefit which goes beyond the immediate b�nefits
provided by the component which is funded.
.>,,,Nr:.,:;
<::<���#':P��+�T`��:�;<;
3. Projects which qualify in two or more of the ten categories of
Enhancements identified in the ISTEA and/or more than one of the
three groupings of these categories established for Minnesota's
process. � �
Discussion...There are ten eligible categories of projects idenrified in the ISTEA which
have been placed in three groups. With limited funding available it makes sense to
give some funding priority to projects which accomplish multiple objectives.
. :ii.L4i��:S•:titi.ii:+{\4i:ii:yii:CY.�:jh: � � � . �
h .
. i! �������...ii � . . . .
� � .�..rn.....tiiiiii:;':•.i'{,:::;:'i::ti:::i:iii,Y..'r;i[ii . . . . . . .
' �
�' ,, t" .�� s
.� � :
� .
_ � „ 4. Projects which have already gone through a statewide or regional
'9;�'� �. ."`.` project priority set�ing praeess.
Discussion...There are a number of processes in Minnesota which have solicited,
prioritized, and selected enhancement type projects for a decade or more. There .
appears to be a number of very good prajects which have gone through one or more
of these processes but rernain unfunded or nnderfunded because of limirations on the
availability of funding in these programs. .
��';;�.�=;>,:r<.�.�f���¢ ��
,�::.�: �. � :��,:�:
:>€�:�:�:�: .:::
w, .~ {.
uw:::5,�.a?�Sf�'Si�'iti''.%`'a6%:H:�7h'..,,.�^kw�,. � . . . � � �
5. Projects which demonstrate more than a local impact or benefi�.�
Discussion...Enhancements funds are federal funds. The amount of funds are limited
and aze probably not sufficient to fund projects in every local community. For
example, priority will be given to projects that benefrt more than one neighborhood,
community, or county, or is recognized as being of state ar national significance. �
:<:f,v,.
;:`€���::���i'�'a<>:':'
:.�::::.::::::::::::..�.......::::::::::::::. - -
-- :::::::::::::::.. ,..�:::
6. Projects which are partially developed with regards to the federal
processing requirements appropriate to the proposed project and or
which can be completed and open to the public for the use intended
by the end of caiendar year 1994.
Discussion.:.All projects funded with federal funds administereti by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) are required to be processed following rules
established by the FHWA. The precise process a project must follow varies. For
example, a project to develop a plan may merely have m follow the consultant
selection process; whereas a major project entailing extensive land acquisition and
significant environmental impacts ma.p entail a number of steps including the writing
of a federal environmental impact statement and holding numerous public meetings
and hearings. Projects which have reached successiye milestones in the development
process appropria.te for the project will be awarded points based on how far in the
process they have been developed. The further a project has been developed, thc mare
certain is its implementation and the more reliable is its estimated cost. It may be
important to be able to demonstrate the public benefit of an Enhancements cornponent
in the ISTEA when a new muiti-yeaz surface transportation bill to succeed the ISTEA
is being crafted by Congress. Those deliberations may start as �ariy as 1995.
n;nvpy{+.v,x.yy,x:n„w,.•,{.•f.4�;h7jj FxN{p;. . . . . . .
} y/� �{Yf ;.r; . . .
.i�,�,`t,.,,�,,,.,..�,,,�i,.,.,.,.,�,.;�"�i+ . . . . . .
....r�.n.tivxx:....v.•i:�>i:•:•i:iii:4:i1'vi:�i:i: - . . . .
6
. � w
7. Projects with an assured local (non federal funds) match in excess of
20 percen� .
Discussion...Based on presentations by a number of agencies in Minnesota which
currendy salicit, prioritize, and select enhancement rype projects; the demands for
Enhancements funds far exceed the amounts made available to 1Vlinnesota.. Providing
a modest incentive for proposers to exceed the minimum required local (non federal
funds} match (20 percent) will ena.ble leveraging imglementation of more projects in
more Iocations throughout the statc. Providing equitable access to Enhancements
funds for poorer communities is also a concern. Tl�errefore,-the maximum local (non
federal funds) share is capped at 50 percent And, the ma�cimum points given to this
prioritizing criterion are sufficiently low to fund projccts scoring well on the remaining
priorit�zing criteria.
;::�.<
:>;:€���1�`:��5�:::`.;
- TOTAL POINTS
`<:�l{3�..�Il��>::::�
7