Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 12-20 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER December 20, 1996 8:30 a.m. (Continued from December 16, 1996, City Council meeting) 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Hearing a. Resolution Approving Modifications No. 1 and No. 2 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 and Requesting the Approval of the City Council -Requested Council Action: -Open the public hearing. -Take public input. -Close the public hearing. - Motion to adopt resolution. 4. Adjournment MIKE OPAT 4512. 348 -7881 COMMISSIONER q FAX-348-8701 +v BOARD OF H ENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A-2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487-0240 Fa_ COVER SHEET DATE: TO: FROM: 'jlYl,��,�.P_� FAX #: Q — :3 ` y FAX #: Number of Pages Including This Sheet: ; If there are any problems with this transmission, immediately telephone: Name: 1�,P At: (612) 348 -7881 Comments: Not Ice: This FAX Is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it Is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under the applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER M IKE OPAT rcD+ 612 -348 -7881 COMMISSIONER a� `i¢+ , 3 FAX-348-8701 4- a BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A -2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 85487 -0240 DATE: December 18, 1996 MEMO TO: Jeff Spartz FROM: Mike Opat / SUBJECT: Brooklyn Center TIF Proposals Resolution No. 92 10 - 917R1 states "that county staff is directed to review and evaluate the tax increment financing plan for each new proposed district or modification to an existing district and prepare a report for the County Board. The report should briefly explain the proposed action, indicate the potential fiscal and economic impact on the county and recommend whether or not the County Board should present comments at the public hearing on the plan. Copies of the report will be sent to the he school districts municipalities and other taxing jurisdictions involved in the proposal." In accordance with Resolution No. 92- 10- 917R1, at approximately 4:00 p.m. on Monday, December 16, 1996, 1 received a memo from you regarding Brooklyn Center's proposal to modify TIF District No. 3. Your memo included the recommendation that Hennepin County request that the TIF plan for District No. 3 be further modified to reimburse the County for $2 million of road improvement costs to CSAH 130. My purpose in writing today is to express my concern and disappointment in the handling of this matter. According to the City of Brooklyn Center, the $2 million reimbursement request significantly impacts the viability of the proposal. Unfortunately, as 1 point out above, I did not receive notice of this request unti 1 just hours before their City Council was meeting to discuss the matter. In fact, I first learned of the request from the Brooklyn Center City Manager, who apparently also received a facsimile of the memo that afternoon. Needless to say, the City of Brooklyn Center feels that Hennepin County is sabotaging its efforts to redevelop the Brockdale Mall through this last minute request. �� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Jeff Spartz December 18, 1996 Page Two I understand that new provisions in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subdivision 1a, enable the County to require cities to pay for all or part of the cost of County Road improvements if the TIF District's development is determined to substantially increase the use of these County Roads. While this new legislation provides the County Board with greater input and opportunity concerning municipal TIF proposals, I have grave concerns about distributing County Administrator recommendations before the County Board has had an opportunity to take a final position. Further, I am concerned that any such County input be circulated in a timely fashion. Our turnaround should be better than just hours before the matter is before the city council. Please review this matter with staff and determine how we might provide a more timely response to the County Board (especially the commissioner within-whose district the project lies) and the taxing jurisdictions. I would also like you to review this specific Brooklyn Center proposal and determine the impact to Brooklyn Center of your recommendation to recoup $2 million in costs for the improvement of CSAH 130. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. attachment cc: Vern Genzlinger Pat O'Connor KD 1057 31 City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. December 19, 1996 Mr. Jeff Spartz Acting County Administrator 2400 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 Re: Proposed Modification of City of Brooklyn Center Tax Increment Financing District #3 Dear Mr. Spartz: Attached please find an analysis prepared by Diane Spector, Brooklyn Center Director of Public Works. As indicated in Ms. Spector's analysis, the recent position taken by County staff appears to contradict Hennepin County's own policy. The proposed modification relates to a redevelopment district and not to an economic development district. Also, the modification proposed simply restores the ability to impact redevelopment through the use of potential TIF proceeds by re- establishing a base for 6 parcels of property at Brookdale and across from Brookdale. Currently, there is a deficit in the Brookdale area in excess of ($1,200,000) in tax capacity. No new development is proposed beyond the original redevelopment plan. It can hardly be argued that a modification removing 6 parcels at Brookdale and returning them to the district has created an impact on 69th Avenue greater than the impact when the redevelopment district was created in 1994. Nothing has changed except the cooperation previously enjoyed between the City and County staff in trying to redevelop a distressed area that is crucial to the economic health of this portion of Hennepin County and Independent School District #281.1 hope that your further review of this matter will allow us to be in a position to work for the redevelopment of Brookdale. Since Michael J. McCaule cc: Commissioner Mike Opat Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Mayor & Council Members 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer Public Services Department MEMORANDUM Govt Buildings Lry TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager Engineering FROM: Diane Spector, Director of Public Service Streets SUBJ: 69th Avenue, Brooklyn Boulevard to West Ci ty Limits (CSAH 130) DATE: December 18, 1996 Parks Public Utilities The segment of 69th Avenue from Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152) to the West City limits is currently designated CSAH 130 and is under the jurisdiction of Hennepin County. Hennepin County recently raised concerns that redeveloping the northeast quadrant of Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th Avenue would require Recreation Hennepin County to reconstruct CSAH 130 as a four lane roadway. I offer the following comments. Central 1) CSAH 130 is currently configured as a two lane collector roadway. ADT Garage in 1995 was estimated as 11,500. Within the City of Brooklyn Center, three deficiencies exist: congestion at the intersection with Brooklyn Boulevard and to a much lesser extent at Lee Avenue; a considerable amount of left turning movements along the corridor by vehicles entering the residential neighborhoods to the north and south; and poor drainage along most of its length. Some of these deficiencies have been partially addressed. The City used the opportunity of our 1994 project to reconstruct the neighborhood streets in the Northwest neighborhood north of CSAH 130 to reconfigure some of the storm drainage system to reduce the amount of sheet drainage across a portion of CSAH 130. Hennepin County has restriped the area of the intersection with Lee Avenue to provide for a turn lane from westbound CSAH 130 to southbound Lee Avenue. Improvements to the east leg of 69th at Brooklyn Boulevard were completed several years ago by the City. Finally, the City has assumed leadership in designing improvements to Brooklyn Boulevard, including the intersection with 69th and CSAH 130 to Lee Avenue, and has financed several traffic studies, and the conceptual and preliminary design phases of that proposed project. Brooklyn Center has requested that Hennepin County consider a construction project to complete improvements to CSAH 130. 1 understand Brooklyn Park has made a similar request for that portion of the roadway which is located in Brooklyn Park. r Page 2 2) In 1988, Brooklyn Center engaged the engineering firm of Short- Elliot - Hendrickson (SEH) to study the 69th Avenue corridor from Zane Avenue to Dupont Avenue. This study was used to guide improvement projects for the segments between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway and from Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont. SEH's findings for the segment between Brooklyn Boulevard and Zane were that operational deficiencies were likely to occur or to deteriorate at Zane Avenue in Brooklyn Park and at Brooklyn Boulevard unless improvements were made. The report also found that existing and projected traffic could adequately be conveyed in this segment utilizing a three lane option -- two through lanes and a continuous left turn lane -- as long as capacity improvements were made at those key intersections. These findings were confirmed by the engineering firm of Strgar- Roscoe- Fausch (SRF) in its Brooklyn Park/North Brooklyn Center Transportation Study in May, 1993. SEH, SRF, and the County's Traffic Forecasts prepared by BRW, Inc. In 1988 all agree that traffic on this segment of CSAH 130 should by 2010 stabilize at about 11,000 ADT. A count of 11,500 in 1995 may be an aberration or it may be a result of increased congestion on 1- 94/694. Both studies indicated that construction of the future third lane on I- 94/694 would eliminate some traffic diversion which is now occurring. The forecasts of 11,000 ADT assumed construction of the third lane by 2010. Two lanes with a continuous left turn lane to provide for the frequent left turns should be more than adequate for the expected level of traffic. Except as noted above, there are no other operational deficiencies of which we are aware which might require consideration of some other cross section. This cross section plus a sidewalk on one side and a trail on the other can be accommodated within the 66 foot right of way. The availability of parking is not an issue as nearly all the residences on the roadway are corner properties. Therefore, I see no reason why this roadway should be considered for widening to four lanes, based on current and projected traffic. 3) Hennepin County has expressed concern that redevelopment in the northeast quadrant of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard would generate such excessive amounts of additional traffic on CSAH 130 that it would necessitate widening to four lanes. State Aid rules, as revised November, 1995, do not require four lanes until a roadway exceeds 15,000 ADT. Even then, some leeway is provided depending on the findings of a capacity analysis. My understanding is that the types of retail being proposed for the redevelopment area are mainly convenience types of retail (drycleaners, restaurant, auto parts, bank, bagel shop, gas station) attracting drive -by traffic from Brooklyn Boulevard or from 69th Avenue east of Brooklyn Boulevard rather than numerous additional neighborhood trips. While no traffic studies have yet been conducted, I find it difficult to envision a mix of the proposed types of retail which would increase traffic on CSAH 130 by 30 percent, or 3,500 vehicles per day. Again, 1 see no reason why the proposed redevelopment would create such a growth in traffic flow so as to require CSAH 130 to be reconstructed as a four lane roadway. 4) In accordance with Hennepin County's Policies for Cost Participation Between Hennepin County and Other Agencies for Cooperative Highway Projects presuming the County and the City agree Page 3 that CSAH 130 should be reconstructed as a three lane roadway (two lane with continuous two - way left turn lane), the City's share of cost would be limited to a pro rata share of engineering, mobilization, traffic control, and other lump sum bid items; 50 percent of the storm sewer trunk lines, catch basins, etc. required to accommodate the County's contributing storm drainage flow; 50 percent of concrete curb and gutter and driveway entrances; adjustments to the City's water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage facilities; and some share of adjustments to the signal system at Brooklyn Boulevard. It is expected that the City would finance its share of these costs through its water, sanitary, and storm drainage utilities, and the city's local state aid roadway fund. It is unlikely that any TIF funding would be necessary to finance these improvements. The County's policy for participation stipulates that the City's share as stated above would not deviate from those standards unless the proceeds from an Economic Development TIF District were used to pay any portion of the costs of the project, in which case section XIV. of that policy would be invoked. Since the adjacent TIF district is not an Economic Development district, and since it is not expected that TIF proceeds would be used to finance any part of the City's share of CSAH 130 improvements, I would expect that the City's cost participation on the CSAH 130 project would be limited to the usual standards. I have attached for your reference copies of the county's cost sharing policy; excerpts from the SEH and SRF reports; and an excerpt from the State Aid manual. cc: Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director Scott Brink, City Engineer INTRODUCTION The attached policies for cost participation will be used by Hennepin County to determine appropriate funding levels for cooperative highway projects with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, municipalities and other agencies. The prior cost policies were established by Hennepin County in 1978 and are being changed primarily as a result of the fact that County Property Tax funds are becoming increasingly limited and, in many cases, are not available to be used on a project. Therefore, County participation must be limited as much as possible to those items that are eligible for State Aid funding. A change has been made in the area of traffic signal participation. As traffic volumes increase, the County is being faced with an expanding number of intersections where traffic signals are warranted in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Installing and maintaining all traffic signals which meet warrants places a strain on both the Capital Budget and the Operating Budget. The County must, therefore, be more selective in terms of which traffic signals are installed and the extent of County participation. A change has also been made to address the use of Tax Increment Financing on County projects by municipalities. One reason that County Property Tax funds are limited is that the tax base is not expanding due to use of Tax Increment Financing. Since the use of the Tax Increment Financing does have a negative impact on County Property Tax funds, the established policy is intended to discourage the use of Tax Increment Financing for the municipal share of a project and, where used, to require a higher municipal cost share. TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 GENERAL POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2 ROADWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3 RIGHT OF WAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3 GRADING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3 SURFACING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3 STORM SEWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4 CONCRETE SIDEWALK CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER (NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED) CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT Page 4 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK FOR MEDIANS (NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED) CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT . . . . i * i * Page 4 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES (NEW OR RECNTUTD CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT Page 4 MUNICIPAL UTILITY RELOCATION OR RECONSTRUCTION . . . .Page 4 PRIVATE UTILITY RELOCATION OR RECONSTRUCTION . . . . .Page 5 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . Page 5 PERMANENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM INSTALLATIONS . . . Page 5 RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS . . Page 6 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS . . . . . . . Page 6 FURNISHING OF ELECTRICAL POWER . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 6 MAINTENANCE FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS. . . . . . . . . . . .Page 7 EMERGENCY PREEMPTION EQUIPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 7 COUNTY FURNISHED EQUIPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 7 INTEGRAL STREET LIGHTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 7 BRIDGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7 STREET LIGHTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7 BIKEWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7 LANDSCAPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7 ENGINEERING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8 LUMP SUM, PRO -RATA ITEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8 INVOICE AMOUNT COMPUTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 8 UTILIZATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING . . . . . . . . . . Page 8 HENNEPIN COUNTY BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS POLICIES FOR COST PARTICIPATION BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND OTHER AGENCIES FOR COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY PROJECTS NOVEMBER 9. 1993 HENNEPIN COUNTY BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS POLICIES FOR COST PARTICIPATION BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND OTHER AGENCIES FOR COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY PROJECTS I. PURPOSE To establish policies for determining appropriate division of cost participation to be used by Hennepin County in funding cooperative roadway, traffic signal and bridge construction projects with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, municipalities and other agencies. II. SCOPE The establishment of cost policy is consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 162.17, 373.01, 471.59 and Amendments. III. GENERAL POLICIES A. The basic premise is that the County pays for costs peculiar to County needs and municipalities pay for costs peculiar to municipal or local needs. B. The County may limit its participation to items eligible for reimbursement with Count State Aid Highway A CS H funds Y g y ( ) notwithstanding the specific policies contained in this document. However, the County will not request CSAH funds project costs assigned to the municipality as a result of the approved coo er 'v p ati a construction agreement, in order not to P reclude the municipality from using its Municipal State Aid funds for those P roject costs. C. A greater degree of County participation is afforded municipalities having a population of less than 5,000 because of the function of the County - roadways in these areas. It is generally true that these roadways are of greater benefit to County -wide users and of less benefit to local users than is the case for roadways in more urbanized areas. In addition, this would be a form of compensation for the absence of direct State Aid allocation's to these municipalities; notwithstanding the present County program of Aid to Municipalities under 5,000 population. D. It is recognized that there may be occasional differences between these policies and written participation policies of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. In those cases, participation will be negotiated by the County Engineer. Page I III. GENERAL POLICIES - continued E. When wa funds are utilized on a Count highway project, federal aid highway u J 9 Y Y 9 Y P these cost participation policies will be applied to the non - federal share of any specific item of work. In the event federal or state grant funds are made available to a project on a lump sum basis, the County will determine the items for which those funds will be utilized. IV. DEFINITIONS Accident Severity Factor: One element of the County's Traffic Signal Ranking System. This factor is used to measure the relative severity of accidents by differentiating between property damage and personal injury accidents in terms of cost. Bikeway: A b' roue bicycle path, or bicycle lane. v cycle t y p y I. Bicycle Route. A roadway or shoulder signed to encourage bicycle use. 2. Bicycle Path. A bicycle facility designed for exclusive or preferential use by persons using bicycles and constructed or developed separately from the roadway or shoulder. 3. Bicycle Lane. A portion of a roadway or shoulder designed for exclusive or preferential use by persons using bicycles. Bicycle lanes are to be distinguished from the portion of the roadway or shoulder used for motor vehicle traffic by physical barrier, striping, marking, or other similar device. Contributing Flow: A. storm sewer procedure that considers that each agency participates in proportion to its share of the design discharge for each section of sewer between inflow points. This method is used by the Minnesota Office of State Aid on all ro'ects except where federal participation is anticipated. J P P P P P County: Hennepin County. Countv Engineer: The County Engineer of Hennepin County or his designated representative. Municipality: Any municipality or township within Hennepin County. Over 5.000: A municipality of 5,000 population or more. Peak Discharge: A storm sewer method that considers that each agency's share is the ratio of its peak discharge through each section of sewer between inflow Points to the summation of peak discharge for all agencies participating in the section of sewer between inflow points. Permanent Traffic Signal: A traffic control signal system normally consisting of metal signal poles with mast arms and underground electrical systems with conduit, cable and handhole installations. Page 2 IV. DEFINITIONS - continued Priority Factor: A number which reflects the sum of the traffic volume factor, the accident susceptibility factor, and the accident severity factor in the County's Traffic Signal Ranking System. Storm Sewer: A drainage system usually consisting of one or more pipes connecting two or more drop inlets. The purpose is to convey surface runoff water from the inlets to an acceptable outlet. Street Lighting• All components normally installed by a municipality for the purpose of street illumination. Standard Specifications• Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Highway Construction, 9 Y n, latest edition r and o supplement / thereto. State Aid Manual: Manual published by the Minnesota Department of Transportation outlining State Aid policies and procedures. State Highway: A highway under jurisdiction of the State of Minnesota. Temporary Traffic Signal: A traffic control signal system normally consisting Of wood poles with signal indications suspended on span wires and overhead electrical systems. Trunk tine: Main conveyor of storm sewer system. Under 5.000• A municipality or township under 5,000 population. Utilities: Water, heating, electric, storm sewer, gas, sanitary, telephone, cable TV, telegraph, street lighting, fiber optics, etc. V. ROADWAYS The County's participation in roadway projects will be as follows: A. RIGHT OF WAY Under 5,000 100% Over 5,000 50� The County will not participate in right of way for parking lanes requested by a municipality. The County's percentage of participation in retaining walls constructed in lieu of right of way will be the e same as for Y right of way. Right of way ay required for wetland mitigation and for surface water retention basins will be at the same participation ratio as the remainder of the project even if the locations of these facilities are not contiguous to the project. B. GRADING Under /Over 5,000 100% C. SURFACING Under /Over 5,000 100% The County will not participate in surfacing of parking lanes requested by a municipality. Page 3 Y. ROADWAYS - continued D. STORM SEWER The County's participation is based on the State Aid formula as defined in State Air? -nual No. 5- 892.600 -605 which uses the ratio of contributing flows e. in federally funded projects where the peak discharge formula is used -ive at the percentage of allowable State Aid funds. The construe ` retention basins for surface water and storm sewer runoff will be C. •ad part of the trunk storm sewer system and will be at the same parti, ratio as the trunk storm sewer lines. 1. Trunk l Under 5,C 100% of County's Contributing Flow Over S,OG_ 50% of County's Contributing Flow 2. Catch basins anu reads within the County highways and at the curb returns of s4de roadway entrances that drain onto the County highways. Under 5,000 100% Over 5,000 50% E. CONCRETE SIDEWALK CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT New - Under /Over 5,000 0% Replacement - Under /Over 5,000 State Aid Eligibility or 100% Whichever is Less F. CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER (NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED) CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT Under 5,000 75% Over 5,000 50% G. CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK FOR MEDIANS (NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED) CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 100% H. CONCRETE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES (NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED) CONCURRENT WITH COUNTY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT Under 5,000 75% Over 5,0 "00 50% I. MUNICIPAL UTILITY RELOCATION OR RECONSTRUCTION I. Initial it 1lation performed w*thout a permit or not in compliance with a County permit. Under /Over 5,000 0% 2. Relocation, reconstruction, improvement, or replacement of unserviceable existing facilities (County Engineer shall determine if existing facility is serviceable or unserviceable). Under /Over 5,000 0% 3. Relocation n—essitated because of addition of parking lane requested by the munic.' ality. Under /Over 5,000 0% 4. In -kind relocation required solely because of County construction procedures. Under /Over 5,000 100% Page 4 V. ROADWAYS I. MUNICIPAL UTILITY RELOCATION OR RECONSTRUCTION - continued 5. Adjustment of existing utility structures to accommodate elevation changes at the street surface. This includes items such as adjusting manhole castings and valve boxes. Lateral extension of utility appurtenances such as hydrants, water service valves, etc. required by the road construction are not included in this category unless they are required solely due to the addition of a parking lane requested by a municipality. Under /Over 5,000 0% J. PRIVATE UTILITY RELOCATION OR RECONSTRUCTION 1. Initial.installation was within County right of way. Under /Over 5,000 0% VI. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS Rationale: As traffic volumes increase, the County is being faced with an expanding number of intersections where traffic signals are warranted in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Installation of marginally warranted traffic signals reduces the efficiency of moving traffic on the County highway system and consumes construction and maintenance funds more appropriately used on higher priority needs. The.County must, therefore, be more selective in terms of which traffic signals are installed and the extent of County participation. The County has developed a Traffic Signal Ranking System which reflects traffic volumes and accident susceptibility and severity. This system will be utilized to determine priorities for new traffic signals (both temporary and permanent). As a general policy, the County will not normally install, or allow to be installed, traffic signals at intersections with a priority factor of less than 30. In addition, some elements of County participation may vary depending upon the factors in the Traffic Signal Ranking System. Municipalities under 5,000 normally will not be required to participate in costs for traffic signal systems. The County's participation in traffic signal projects with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, municipalities over 5,000 and other agencies will be as follows: A. Permanent Traffic Signal System Installations The County will not normally install, or allow to be installed, traffic signals at intersections with a priority factor of less than 30. At locations where traffic signals are warranted and have a priority factor of 30 or more in the County's Traffic Signal Ranking System, the construction costs shall be pro -rated as follows. The construction costs include all of the control equipment and standards, signal heads and related items, but does not include the costs of interconnect cable, Page 5 YI. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS - continued A. Permanent Traffic Signal S installations - continued condu" --4 handholes necessary to coordinate traffic signals between inters These interconnect costs will be 100% County cost. 1. No T. hways involved if: Two leg.. intersection or less State Aid Eligibility or are Coun: ays. 25% Whichever is Less Three legs f the State Aid Eligibility or intersection -y roadways 50% Whichever is Less 2. Trunk Highways ir. if: One leg is a County r.. ly State Aic :legibility or 12 1/2% Whichever is Less Two legs are County roadways State Aid Eligibility or 25% Whichever is Less B. Reconstruction of Existing Traffic Signal Systems Where C - sting traffic signals are upgraded by installation of a new system, ;.he County's share shall be twice that shown in Paragraph A of Section No. VI. C. Temporary Traffic Signal Installations The County prefers that permanent traffic signals be installed initially wherever feasible. In the event that permanent traffic signals are not feasible, the following cost participation policies apply for temporary traffic signal install` uns: The municipality will pay the full cost of a temporary traffic signal and will not receive any credit for those costs when a permanent traffic signal is installed if, at the time the temporary traffic signal is installed, the accident severity fac +-- 'ess than 10 or if the priority factor is less than 40. For those ' ..,y traffic signal projects with an accident severity factor of 10 - 19 or a priority factor of 40 - 49, the municipality will receive credit for 50% of the cost of the temporary traffic signal when the permanent traffic signal is installed. For those temporary traffic signal projects with an accident severity factor of 20 or more or a priority factor of 50 or more, the municipality will receive credit for 75% of the cost of the temporary traffic signal when the permanent traffic signal is installed. The costs for temporary traffic signals installed only for traffic control during construction of a County project shall be paid 100% by the County. D. Electrical power shall be furnished by the municipality. Source of power, including transformer, shall be provided by the municipality. Page 6 VI. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS - continued E. Maintenance for all traffic signals on County roadways shall be furnished by the County when the County is the road authority. F. The entire cost of necessary equipment, installation and maintenance of any traffic signal emergency preemption equipment will be borne by the municipality. G. Costs for County furnished equipment such as, but not limited to, controller cabinets, mast arms, poles, etc. will be apportioned the same as the traffic signal installation /reconstruction costs. H. When street lighting is integral to the traffic signal pole, the cost will be included with installation. VII. BRIDGES The County's participation in bridge projects will be as follows: Under /Over 5,000 Negotiation by County Engineer VIII. STREET LIGHTING The County will not participate in the installation of new street lighting. Participation in the relocation or reconstruction of existing street lighting will be on the same basis as for municipal utility relocation or reconstruction (see Paragraph I of Section No. V). IX. BIKEWAYS Hennepin County encourages the increased use of bicycles as a means of transportation. To that purpose, it will incorporate bicycle lanes or routes within the roadway design at 100% County cost whenever feasible. Bicycle paths separate from the roadway itself would normally not be constructed unless it were part of an overall community plan for a bicycle trail system. This policy provides that the cost of bicycle paths would be a shared responsibility between the County and the municipality. X. LANDSCAPING The County will participate in landscaping for replacement only to the extent of State Aid participation and limited to one percent (1 %) of the total cost of the construction project. Participation is limited to a two to one replacement on trees. The County will not participate in the landscaping of median areas or in irrigation system costs. Page 7 XI. ENGINEERING The County's participation in engineering includes design costs which are cost incurred prior to the award of the contract and contract administration costs which are costs incurred subsequent to the award of contract. A. Design and /or Contract Administration performed by the County and based on the municipality's share of contract construction. Under /Over 5,000 *Negotiation by County Engineer B. Design and /or Contract Administration performed by the municipality and based on the County's share of contract construction. Under /Over 5,000 *Negotiation by County Engineer * Based on current Hennepin County costs. XII. LUMP SUM, PRO -RATA ITEMS Proposal forms carry lump sum bidding requirements for the items of Mobilization (2021), Maintenance and Restoration of Haul Roads (2051) and Traffic Control (0563). Field Office and Field Laboratory (2031) are not, strictly speaking, lump sum pay items. However, their general characteristics are such as to require that they be handled the same as Mobilization. A municipality shall be charged a pro -rata share of the above items. Proration shall be based on a percentage factor applied to the cost amounts chargeable to the County and the municipality for other construction items. Mobilization, Maintenance and Restoration of Haul Roads, Field Office and Field Laboratory, and Traffic Control are construction items and shall be subject to the negotiated percentage charge for engineering. XIII. INVOICE AMOUNT COMPUTATION After bids have been received and a contract awarded, and also upon completion of construction, the unit prices shall be substituted for the estimated unit prices /quantities and the percentage ratio established originally shall be recomputed. XIV. UTILIZATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING Rationale: This policy has been included to address the use of Tax Increment Financing on County projects by municipalities. Tax Increment Financing limits expansion of the 7ax base for new development and, thereby, limits the availability of additional County Property Tax funding which might be used.on the County highway system. The County's participation in a project where Tax Increment Financing is utilized by a municipality will be as follows: Page 8 XIY. L'TILIZATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING - continued At the time a municipality is requested to approve the preliminary plans for a project, the municipality must identify, by resolution, whether it intends to use Tax Increment Financing for any portion of the project cost. If the municipality elects to use Tax Increment Financing from any Economic Development District for any portion of the project cost, municipal participation will be 50% of the total engineering and construction cost and 100% of the right of way cost for any portion of the project within that municipality. Page 9 PROJECT MEMORANDUM 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM ZANE AVENUE NORTH TO DUPONT AVENUE NORTH CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA INTRODUCTION This Project Memorandum has been prepared b SEH for P Y the City of Brooklyn Center and submitted in accordance with the approved highway project development process. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION This report focuses on 69th Avenue North from Zane Avenue North on the west and Dupont Avenue North on the east; a distance of 3.0 miles. The westerly .25 miles of Y 69th Avenue North lies in the City of Brooklyn Park. From Zane Avenue North to Brooklyn Boulevard (0.9 miles), 69th Avenue North is Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 30. See Figure 1, Project Location Map. 69th Avenue North is a two lane rural section with shoulders for the majority of its length. Widening occurs at the major intersections with Zane Avenue North, Brooklyn Boulevard, Shingle Creek Parkway, Humboldt Avenue North, and Dupont Avenue North. The right -of -way is primarily sixty -six (66) feet wide. Pedestrians and bicyclists must use the shoulder from Palmer Lake Park to Dupont Avenue North. A sidewalk is provided on one side Of the roadway from Zane Avenue North to Palmer Lake Park. Pedestrian trails are provided in Palmer Lake Park. Average daily ally traffic is approximately 9,000 vehicles per day from Zane Avenue North to Brooklyn Boulevard, 13,000 vehicles per day from Brooklyn Boulevard to Shingle Creek Parkway, and 6,500 vehicles per day from Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue North. t for curves is generally straight o e The horizontal alignment ge Y ht excep g in the vicinity of Palmer Lake Park which are not consistent with the alignment in the remainder of the corridor. Current adjacent land uses are residential with the exception of commercial areas near Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway, park land on the north side from West Palmer Lake Drive to Oliver Avenue North (Palmer Lake Park), and neighborhood commercial development at Humboldt Avenue. III PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The improvements proposed for 69th Avenue North include grading, curb and gutter, bikeway /walkway, and surfacing. Projected traffic volumes can be served with a three lane section (one lane in each direction with a continuous left turn lane) from Zane Avenue North to Brooklyn Boulevard. Lanes will be added at Brooklyn Boulevard to increase capacity of the intersection. The 69th Avenue /Shingle Creek Parkway intersection will be realigned to favor the major traffic movements and a (to be determined) section is proposed from Brooklyn Boulevard to Shingle Creek Parkway. A two lane section is proposed from Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue North. All major intersections will have turn lanes. Existing alignment deficiencies will be eliminated by flattening curves and moving slightly into Palmer Lake Park. The Section 6(f) conversion process for park lands is discussed in Section 4 of this report. The roadway would be designed to state aid standards. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED - 69TH AVENUE /SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY INTERSECTION Several alternates were considered for the realignment of the 69th Avenue /Shingle Creek Parkway intersection and are presented in Figures 2 -8. The existing alignment of the intersection does - 2 - �t Fy � �p w 3 � a tAi SI 0 2 � �� a o M �� �- 15 , 900 10,900 _,/ •� r J — r 17,200 rssoo at % t� 1 - 694 63RD A/E. o ►��� FIGURE VI nic NO j FUTURE TRAFFIC Year 2010 traffic forecasts for the roadway system in the study area are shown in Figure 2. These forecasts were made using the regional forecasting models. They assume that the third lane will be added to 1 -94 west of Brooklyn Boulevard and that Brooklyn Boulevard will be improved as discussed earlier. Based on these assumptions, traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard is expected to grow to 54,000 trips per day north of 1 -94, and to 39,000 trips per day south of 1 -94. The proposed improvements will enable Brooklyn Boulevard to accommodate this amount of traffic at Level of Service C or better. (See Appendix B for the capacity analysis results.) The future addition of a third lane on 1 -94 west of Brooklyn Boulevard will reduce traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard by approximately 5,000 vehicles per day. This reduction, combined with the capacity improvements proposed for Brooklyn Boulevard, gives Brooklyn Boulevard the ability to serve traffic that was previously diverted from it because of congestion. The principal beneficiary of the increased capacity is Shingle Creek Parkway /69th Avenue. Shingle Creek Parkway is expected to experience a growth of just over 2,000 trips per day north of Freeway Boulevard. OTHER PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS In addition to the Brooklyn Boulevard improvements, the following improvements are recommended for other roadways in the study area: C.S.A.H. 130 (69th Avenue North • West Approach: rovide separate left -turn, through and right-turn lanes. P P 9 9 • East Approach: provide separate left -turn, through and through /right lanes. • West of the intersection, the cross- section should be either two lanes with left -turn lanes at intersections, or three lanes with continuous center left -turn lane. Both lane configurations will operate at similar levels of service. 5 �3 SST Jc �n� '1 M-=y� 7 5 . --- - — -- 25 _ BROOKLYN 9 0 0 . CENTER 252 � .152 z — 41,000 — 80 0 1_� 8 3 0 1 ' 060 P C II ` -1 _ - 1 4 b 00 Lake 69thAv — 5 ,00 - �1,00 15,000 r 9,000 7,00 65,000 — — 4,000 4, ' 1 , 0 =� 694 52 94 L 1� 0,00 z 15 00 _ — 14,000 14,000 3 000 J� 8 00D qV 7 N. 15,00 8,000 5,0 0 . — _ 4 00 152 —� C 63rd - Ave. 9,000 694 ,00 60 0 I , Y 1 L i. ,000 x 5 94 CD CRYS'1'AI. — - - - -�� _ _ 52 r, 50,0 0 Crys cil Air-port 0 1000 2000 3000 SCALE FEET NORTH BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION STUDY FIGURI SRF 2010 DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 2 except 3.3 meters is required if the design speed is over 60 kilometers per hour. (b) Wherever possible, lane widths of 3.6 meters, rather than 3.3 meters, should be used. (c) May be reduced to 0.6 meters if there are four or more traffic lanes and on one -way streets. (d) No parking is allowed for six or more traffic lanes or when the posted speed limit exceeds 70 kilometers per hour. One -way streets must have at least two through- traffic lanes. When a median is included in the design of the two -way roadway, a 0.3 meter reaction distance to the median is required on•either side of the median. Minimum median width is 1.2 meters. Urban design roadways must be a minimum 8.2 metric ton structural design. A new or rehabilitated bridge must have a curb -to -curb width equal to the required street width. MS 22.5 loading or LRFD design is required for new bridges and a minimum of MS 16 loading is required for rehabilitated bridges. Clearance of 0.5 meter from the face of the curb to fixed objects must be provided when the posted speed is 60 to 70 kilometers per hour. A three -meter clearance from the driving lane must be provided when the posted speed exceeds 70 kilometers per hour. For volumes greater than 15,000 projected ADT *, at least s four through- traffic lanes are required. *Additional average daily traffic may be allowed if a capacity analysis demonstrates that level of service D or better is achieved at the higher traffic volume. If the capacity analysis demonstrates that additional lanes are required only during peak traffic hours, then each additional driving lane may be used as a parking lane during ncnpeak hours. "Level of service" has the meaning given it in the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, as revised and published by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council, Washington, D.C. The definition is incorporated by reference, is not subject to frequent change, and is located at the Minnesota State Law Library, 25 Constitution Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155. SA: MS s 162.02; 162.09 HIST: 20 SR 1041 l 8820.9940 (Repealed, 20 SR 1041) 8820.9945 (Repealed, 20 SR 1041) 8820.9946 GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS, URBAN; RESURFACING. Subpart 1. Two -way streets. in the following table, total width is in meters, from :ace -to -face of curbs. a 42 ;i _ t IL06W of Thr.uNh Law, Tout Width TWAT Width with rout Width wi �reoea harmimrl Claw, aw with so pwitire an am hwt /ray an am strtcnrot Pree rat Traffic volum r.reiry 11461 sides o»in Str.rtn tootr•ic tar) 2 -Lane Collector or 7.8 9.6 11.4 8.2(b) Local with ADT < 10000 4 -Lane Collector or 13.2 15.6 18.0 8.2(b) Local with ADT < 10000 2 -Lane Collector or 7.8 9.6 12.6 8.2 Local with ADT > 10000 or 2 -Lane Arterial (a) 4 -Lane Collector or 13.2 16.2 19.2 8.2 Local with ADT > 10000 or 4 -Lane Arterial 6 -Lane Collectors or 19.8 Arterials ..�.� cif• 4. (a) Permissible for present traffic volumes less than : V 15,000 ADT. (b) When ADT is less than 5,000, 6.4 metric tons is allowable (c) No parking is allowed. Minimum design speed is 50 kilometers per hour. When a median is included in the design of the two -way roadway, a 0.3 I meter reaction distance to the median is required on either side ' :il•..'^ of the median. Minimum median width is 1.2 meters. Subp. 2. One -way streets. In the following table, total width is in meters, from face -to -face of curbs. ti � C •!•1� rrrjjj � ��y J Y ii. j� . Y� r 43