The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-01-27 Meeting PacketAGENDA Regular Meeting of the Edina Transportation Commission 6:00 PM, Thursday, January 27, 2005 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Community Room I. Call to Order II. New Business a. I-494 Corridor Commission attended by Les Wanninger* b. Handouts o December 22, 2004 letter from Jeane K. Hanson* o “Street Utility Fee” Bill Introduction in Minnesota Senate* III. Old Business a. Update – FINAL DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy Jan. 6, 2005* b. Memorandum – 2003 Local Traffic Task Force Action Plan Update* IV. Approval of Minutes a. January 6, 2005* b. Corrected Minutes – December 9, 2004 V. Adjournment VI. Open Discussion a. Discussion item – Joint Edina Transportation Commission and Richfield Transportation Commission meeting regarding future of Highway 62 beyond I-35W to the west. * Note: Attachment included. 494 Commuter Services Executive Director's Report January 2005 EMPLOYER OUTREACH Employer Mtgs. (5) Allen Mechanical Express Scripts Normandale C.C. (2) Toro Property Manager Mtgs. (1) Centennial Lakes Commuter Fairs (7) Express Scripts (2) Gn Resound Normandale C.C. (4) Group Presentations Commute Planners 630+ Employer Calls 35 Zip code maps Displays 4 Meetings with allies PRT Charette, Southdale Area Redevelopment Study, TMA Summit Program Committee, Mtg with transit agencies re: Normandale office park, Adam Harrington re: Sector 5 feedback Miscellaneous Completed two pooling videos, moved into new office Status Against Goals in 2004 Work Plan Goal Achieved Property Managers 1) Commuter fairs 20 38 2) TDM plans 4 11 Employers 3) Commuter fairs 85 110 4) Enroll in Commuter Challenge 85 115 (49% of regional total) 5) Commuter surveys 4 9 6) CBC 40 68 7) Information seminars 3 11 Employees/Commuters 8) Add to Ridepro ridematching 1200 1224 9) Create new vanpools 6 3 10 Commuter Challenge pledges n/a 1314 General Outreach 10) Articles in newspapers/journals n/a 9 (see attached) 11) Group presentations n/a 13 12) Commuter Choice nomination/winners n/a 18/4 (plus, 7 employers recognized by Bloomington, Plymouth and Minnetonka) Transportation Fundin Proposals FUNDING SOURCES Transportation Alliance AMC MN Chamber of Commerce Motor Fuels Tax Increase 6-cent/gal increase (Tier I) 6-cent/gal (Tier II) $192M - $384M 5-cent/gal I year, 5-cent/gal, 2nd year $160M + $160M 5-cent/gal increase via Constitutional Amendment for 10 years License Tab Fee Increase Remove current caps and change depreciation schedule, grandfather in existing vehicles Average $170M over 10 years (Tied) Increase can be considered if no general fund reductions NO % cent Sales Tax in Metro Area Y2 - cent sales tax increase in metro area - $225.5M (Tier I) 1/2 - cent sales tax increase in metro area — $225.5M NO Other Regional Sales Taxes Y2 -cent sales tax increase authorized in other regions. Rough estimate - $30M annually (Tier I) Y2 -cent sales tax increase authorized in other regions. Rough estimate - $30M annually NO Indexing Motor Fuels Tax Yes — starts at $20M annually (Tier I) Yes in 3rd year — starts at $20M annually NO TH Bonds Use part of motor fuel tax increase to leverage $100M/year for 10 years (Tier I) Yes - $100M YES-$150M per year for 5 years _ GO Bonds $181M annually for transitways and local roads and bridges (Tier I) $60M annually for local bridges and air/rail/ports $65M annually for 10 years Wheelage Tax Authorize all counties to levy wheelage tax and remove current $5 cap. If all 87 counties levy a $20/vehicle fee, raises $120M annually (Tier I) Authorize all counties to levy wheelage tax and remove current $5 cap. If all 87 counties levy a $20/vehicle fee, raises $120M annually NO Street Utility Fee Authorize cities to impose utility fee based on trip generation - Rough estimate - $5M/yr (Tier II) NO NO Developer Fees NO Yes —no revenue estimate NO FAST Lanes Yes, one project could reduce the unmet need $25M annually over 10 years (Tier I) NO FAST/HOT lanes - $20M annually for 10 years Efficiencies NO $45M annually $45 - $100M annually for 10 years Metro Regional Bonds Increase bonding authority from current $32M to $54M for transit capital needs (Tier II) NO NO Federal Funds No estimate Estimate of increase federal funds that could meet some of the unmet need - $125M annually Estimate of increased federal funds that could be captured for a list of specific projects - $160M annually for 10 years Transfer Additional MYST Begin to incrementally transfer more of MVST from general fund —5% would provide $31M annually (Tier II) Transfer of MVST from general fund could be considered under certain circumstances YES-80% Regional property tax levy — Regional Rail Authorities Increase levy authority for Regional Rail authorities by $32 million for transit capital Increase levy authority for Regional Rail Authorities by $20 million for transit operating Local Match TOTALS $988.4M Tier I, $1.274B with Tier H $1,001.4M $760M first year-5-10 years $534M 494 Commuter Services 2005 Work Plan (DRAFT') Goal#1 Increase Property Manager Promotion of Commuter Choices • Conduct 40 commuter fairs at major office complexes • Send quarterly newsletter article (e.g. construction updates) to all property managers • Conduct a commuter information seminar with property managers • Work with city's to make sure that new developments--exceeding city specific size thresholds—create and implement an effective TDM plan. • Provide City of Bloomington with report on "Best Practices for Local TDM Ordinances in the Twin Cities and Nation-wide" • Promote designation of preferential parking for pools • Promote installation of secure bicycle racks Goal #2: Increase Employer Promotion of Commuter Choices • Contact 20 new employers each month • Enroll 110 employers in the Commuter Challenge • Conduct 100 commuter fairs • Conduct 3 commuter surveys and transportation management plans • Complete commuter zip code map for 6 employers • Put up commuter information board at 60 employment sites • Organize two employer seminars on "best practices" for promoting commuter options • Work with 1-494 Board to provide entrée to employers. • Market and assist employers in implementing TDM strategies (e.g. Van-GO, MetroPass, tax benefits, communications to employees, GRH) • Identify and regularly update 60 Commuter Benefit Coordinators • Expand use of on-line ridematching system by commuters and employers. • Collect and track timely information on employer participation in commuter programs • Widely distribute new "Pooling makes Sense" video Goal #3: Increase Employee Awareness and use of Commuter Choices • Add 1300 commuters to Ridepro database • Register 250 1-494 Commuters as new car or van poolers • Create 4 new Van-GO vans • Widely distribute new "Van-GO for Beginners" video • Create and market new bicycle commuting promotion • Put up roadside rideshare signs at entrance to several office complexes • Collaborate on MCS "Inside Lane" monthly newsletter to employers Goal #4: Create New Marketing Materials and Incentives f • Increase visibility of 1-494 Corridor Commission commuter program outreach • Create brochure on property manager communication strategies • Create new commuter incentives with portion of budget CAdave\494workplan05.doc Goal #5: Increase the General Public's Awareness of Transportation and Commuter Issues • Update 1-494 Website on a regular basis • Write semi-annual article/advertisement for local/regional newspapers in six corridor cities. • Widely promote the regional "Commuter Challenge" consisting of broad public outreach on congestion issue and commuting options • Assist with planning for 2005 Commuter Choice Awards Program • Nominate 1-494 employers/property managers for 2005 Commuter Choice Awards • Give presentations to allied organizations, such as member City chambers, City staff, other transportation providers, etc. • Encourage media coverage of new TDM/transit strategies and innovative case studies Goal #6: Work with Local and National Partners to Advance TDM as Effective Congestion Mitigation Strategy • Participate in planning committees for 2005 TMA Summit in Minneapolis. • Participate in national organizations to network, share information and enhance capacity • Serve on Advisory Team for Greater Southdale Land Use and Transportation Study • Serve Steering Committee for 1-494 Network Transit Study (PRT) • Provide input and assist with testing new regional commuter incentives • Enter all relevant data on employers and property managers into the regional Ridepro database. • Train new 494 Commuter Services staff as needed Goal # 7 Track Outcomes of Commuter Outreach • Report new commuters registered as carpools or vanpools, and commuters enrolling in the Guaranteed Ride Home program (i.e. new busriders, bicyclists and walkers) • Assist with post-survey of Commuter Challenge participants • Explore other strategies for tracking increased use of alternative transportation options (e.g. annual survey) Work Plan Strategies A) Staffing - 494 Commuter Services staff will each provide commuter assistance to employers in one to three Cities. > Dave Van Hattum — Plymouth and Minnetonka > Melissa Madison - Bloomington, Richfield, Edina > Kate Diercks- Eden Prairie (with emphasis on the Golden Triangle). CAdave\494workplan05.doc 1-494 Corridor Commission "BREAKING THE GRIDLOCK" Principles for Responsible Transportation Funding 1. Gas Tax Increase: 10 cent/gallon increase over 2 years with a Constitutional referendum in 2006 dedicating the total dollars from the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax to transportation funding and elimination of 5 cents on the gas tax. 2. License Tab Fee Increase: Remove the current caps and change depreciation schedules. Existing vehicles will be grandfathered. 3. Metro-wide 1/2 cent sale tax dedicated to transporation and transit. 4. Authority to Impose Other Regional Sales Taxes within the State. 5. Bonding Using Trunk Highway Fund revenue not to exceed 10% of the fund 6. General Obligation Fund bonding for local bridges, airports, railroads and ports: approximately $60 million annually. 7. Increase the use of FAST Lanes to reduce unmet needs by $50 million annually. 8. Press for increased federal funding to off-set reductions from the statewide ethanol mandate. House Transportation Finance Committee Membership 2005 - 2006 Meets: Tuesdays and Thursdays, 12:30 p.m. in Room 10 of the State Office Building. Chair: Mary Liz Holberg (R) Vice Chair: Connie Ruth (R) Lead-DFL: Bernie Lieder (DFL) Ron Abrams (R) Bruce Anderson (R) Ron Erhardt (R) Frank Hornstein (DFL) Dan Larson (DFL) DOLICI Magnus (R) Michael Nelson (DFL) ex-officio Jim Knoblach (R) Phone Number (651) area code 296-6926 296-5368 296-5091 296-9934 296-5063 296-4363 296-9281 296-7158 296-5505 296-3751 296-6316 E-mail Address rep.marvliz.holberg@house.mn rep.connie.ruthahouse.mn rep.bernie.liederabouse.mn rep.ron.abramsahouse.mn rep.bruce.andersonMhouse.mn rep.ron.erhardtahouse.mn rep.frank.hornstein@house.mn rep.dan.larsonahouse.mn rep.doup.mapnusahouse.mn rep.michael.nelsonehouse.mn rep.iim.knoblachahouse.mn Committee Staff Committee Administrator: Becky Glivan 296-5528 Committee Legislative Assistant: Joyce Vogt 297-8407 House Transportation Committee Membership 2005 - 2006 Meets: Tuesdays and Wednesdays, 2:30 p.m. in Room 10 of the State Office Building. Phone Number E-mail Address Chair: Ron Erhardt (R) 296-4363 rep.ron.erhardWhouse.mn Vice Chair: Peter Nelson (R) 296-5377 rep.peter.nelsonAhouse.mn Lead-DFL: Dan Larson (DFL) 296-7158 rep.dan.larsonQhouse.mn Bruce Anderson (R) 296-5063 rep.bruce.andersonRhouse.mn Ray Cox (R) 296-7065 rep.ray.coxahouse.mn Lloyd Cvbart (R) 296-5506 rep.11ovd.cvbartahouse.mn Denise Dittrich (DFL) 296-5513 rep.denise.dittrichahouse.mn Patti Fritz (DFL) 296-8237 rep.patti.fritz0house.mn Paul Gazelka (R) 296-4333 rep.paul.aazelkaahouse.mn Mary Liz Holberq (R) 296-6926 rep.marvliz.holbergahouse.mn Frank Hornstein (DFL) 296-9281 rep.frank.hornsteinahouse.mn Melissa Hortman (DFL) 296-4280 rep.melissa.hortmanahouse.mn Bernie Lieder (DFL) 296-5091 rep.bernie.liederahouse.mn Leon Lillie (DFL) 296-1188 rep.leon.lillieOhouse.mn Scott Newman (R) 296-1534 rep.scottnewmanOhouse.mn Mark Olson (R) 296-4237 rep.mark.olsonQhouse.mn Sandra Peterson (DFL) 296-4176 Connie Ruth (R) 296-5368 Dan Severson (R) 296-7808 Katie Sieben (DFL) 296-4342 Steve Simon (DFL) 296-9889 Judy Soderstrom (R) 296-0518 Committee Staff Committee Administrator: Margaret Amundson 29617427 Committee Legislative Assistant: Cassi Holmstrom 296-5489 rep.sandra.petersonAhouse.mn rep.conniesuth(Mhouse.mn rep.dan.seversonOhouse.mn rep.katie.siebenahouse.mn rep.steve.simonahouse.mn rep.ludv.soderstromabouse.mn Senate Transportation Policy & Finance Commitee Steve Murphy Vice Chair: Mee Moua Ranking Minority member: Mark Ourada Office: 306 Capitol Phone: (651) 296-1738 Meets: Tues., Thurs., 3 - 5:30 p.m. 15 Capitol Size: 18 Members: Satveer Chaudhary Dick Day D. Scott Dibble Dean E. Johnson Michael J. Jungbauer Keith Langseth Sharon Marko Mike McGinn Julianne E. Ortman Mady Reiter Ann H. Rest Claire A. Robling David H. Senjem Jim Vickerman Charles "Chuck" Wiger Committee Staff Division Administrator: Billie Ball„ (651) 296-1738 Legislative Assistant: Beau Berentson, (651) 296-4264 Legislative Assistant: Yer Chang, (651) 296-5285 Counsel: Bonnie Berezovsky, (651) 296-9191 Legislative Analyst/Fiscal Analyst: Amy Vennewitz, (651) 296-7681 Committee Page: Brock Bowman, (651) 296-8018 For more information about commuting options, fit out the form inside and fax to (952) 848-4904 or detach and mail. 494 Commuter Ser,/ices is a joint program of the cities along 1-494 (Bloomington, Richfield, Eden Prairie, Edina, Plymouth and Minnetonka). Our goal is to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution while easing the commute for people who work in the cities we serve. Stressful Commute? cAlirdoi • Carpool or Vanpoo • Take the bus • Ride your bike • Guaranteed Rid 5701 Normandale Road Suite 322 Edina, MN 55424 Phone (952) 848-4947 Fax. (952) 848-4904 www.494corndonorg tether we can red CarpoolNanpool. Sharing the ride to work with just one other person can cut your commuting costs in half. A vanpool (consisting of at least five people) is ideal for longer commutes. To get started in forming a car or vanpool, well send you a list of people with similar commutes. You can also process your own list by going to www metrocommuterservices org ake the bus. • e'll send you a perSonal r chedules. You may also g m tr tr n it. .r. and u r Gall 612-373-3333. traffic corig We have great resources including commuting tips and maps. Also, all buses and trains have bike racks making a bike-n-bus commute easy. Guaranteed Ride Home. . is is a free program available to those who use an alternative to driving alone at least three days a week. You will receive four coupons (valued at • p to $25 each) each year good for a taxi ride ome in the event of an unexpected schedule hange. Please complete the following information and fax form to (952)848-4904 or fold, stamp and in I am interested in receiving the following commuting information: Carpooling J Vanpooling :1 Bus/Light Rail Info 7 Bike-to-Work Resources _3 Park & Ride Lots Guaranteed Ride Home Name Email Commute Origin Home Address Apt. City Zip Code Phone ( ) Commute Destination Company Address Ste. City Zip Code Phone ( Work Hours: at I start (AM/PM) I finish at (AM/PM) My current commuting mode (3 or more days per week) is: 0 Drive Alone 0 CarpoolNanpool 0 Bus/Train 0 Bike 0 Other For CarpoolNanpool List ONLY: 1. Please have potential carpool partners contact me by: 0 Work Phone I Home Phone 0 Email 2. I prefer to be a: 0 Driver GI Rider 0 Either 3. I am flexible by MORE than 30 minutes on the start & finish times: LI Yes 0 No I verify that the information contain, „ .1 this form is true and correct, and that I have read the Tennessen Warning (below). Signature Your Data Privacy Rights relnessen iNarning Data PrSacy Act) 1. You vvill be asked to crook le certain nformatt.on on this four for me purpose of pnyadIng you and the like applicarts vath rideshare services. 2. Participation in the Metro Commuter Services Program is strictly voluntary, and you are not required by law to furnish any of the information requested on this form. 3. The following information requested on this form is classified as private data under Minnesota Government Data Practices Act: (a) your residential address and telephone number: it) your beginning and ending work hours: (c) your current mode of commuting to and from work, and (d) the type of rideshare service information you have requested. All other information you provide is considered public data and is accessible by any person for any reason. 4. You should know that any of the information you provide, whether classified as private or public. will be provided to certain other entities and individuals in order to supply you with the requested rideshare services. These entities and individuals include other agencies or governmental units. employers that are participating in the matching of information of rideshare applicants, and other matched rideshare applicants. In order to provide you with rideshare service(s), match lists containing your name, address, employer, telephone number(s) of your choice, working hours and rideshare preference may be sent to any of the above listed entities or individuals. 5. The only consequences of not furnishing all the information on this form are: (1) the rideshare program will be denied data to be used for statistical evaluation and (2) the rideshare program's ability to supply you with the requested services may be restricted. 6. The information provided by you on this form will be solely and exclusively for providing you and the like applicants with rideshare service. Very truly yours, <4(,_ Jeanne K. Hanson Jeanne K. Hanson Literary Agent 6708 Cornelia Dr. Edina, Minnesota 55435 Phone and Fax: (952) 920-8819 e-mail: jkhlit@aol.com Jean White Transportation Committee City of Edina December 22, 2004 Dear Jean, I have a couple of questions, as a concerned citizen, about changing the traffic flow/volume within the Country Club neighborhood. The law that covers associations gives such groups some unusual rights, and, though I don't know much about them, it's possible that the city might make an unfortunate misstep here. It might be a good idea to inquire of the City of Edina attorney along the following lines: 1) Is the Country Club neighborhood an "association" under the law? (It was developed as one of the first suburbs in America, in the days when the developers asked new residents to participate in a "covenant." Some, if not many, of these covenants later became associations.) 2) If the Country Club neighborhood is an association, does it have the right--under certain circumstances (see, e.g. questions 3 and 4 below)--to take control of any of its existing "common property" such as streets or access points, provided that it assumes the upkeep of them? (A resort association I used to belong to took over public access to a beach. And a certain number of new exurban developments today control their own streets.) 3) Would it have this property right if and only if these streets and access points were not used (under some definition) by the outside public? (If not, is there another way this might develop?) 4) If the City of Edina were to divert traffic in a major way, creating blockades, closed streets, cul-de-sacs, and the like, restricting or preventing non-Country Club drivers from using them, would this create for the Country Club neighborhood a first step towards control along these lines (as mentioned in question 2)? I'm certainly not saying that the people of Country Club (quite a few of whom I know and like) are engaged in some sort of tricky conspiracy here. I've never been into conspiracies! What I am concerned about is that the City could take a traffic-related step that might later, or eventually, lead to something like a gated community in our midst. CC Mayor James Hovland Minnesota Senate Legislature Home I Links to the World I Help I Advanced ; House I Senate I Joint Departments and Commissions Bill Search and Status I Statutes, Laws, and Rules KEY: ctricken. - old language to be removed underscored = new language to be added NOTE: If you cannot see any difference in the key above, you need to change the display of stricken and/or underscored language. Authors and Status m List versions S.F. No. 366, as introduced 84th Legislative Session (2005-2006) Posted on Jan 13, 2005 1.1 A bill for an act 1.2 relating to transportation; authorizing cities to 1.3 impose street utility fee; proposing coding for new 1.4 law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 160. 1.5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 1.6 Section 1. [160.95] [STREET UTILITY FEE.] 1.7 Subdivision 1. [DEFINITIONS.] For the purposes of this 1.8 section, the following terms have the meanings given. 1.9 (a) "Municipality" means a home rule charter or statutory 1.10 city. 1.11 (b) "Governing body" means the city council of a 1.12 municipality. 1.13 (c) "Reconstruction" means paving, grading, curbs and 1.14 gutters, bridge repair, overlays, drainage, base work, subgrade 1.15 corrections, and boulevard restoration. 1.16 (d) "Facility upgrade" means traffic signals, turn lanes, 1.17 medians, street approaches, alleys, rights-of-way, sidewalks, 1.18 retaining walls, fence installation, and additional traffic 1.19 lanes. 1.20 (e) "Maintenance" means striping, seal coating, crack 1.21 sealing, sidewalk maintenance, signal maintenance, street light 1.22 maintenance, and signage. 1.23 Subd. 2. [AUTHORIZATION.] A municipality may impose the 1.24 street utility fee provided in this section against land located 1.25 within its boundaries. 2.1 Subd. 3. [PROCEDURES FOR ADOPTION.] A municipality may 2.2 impose the street utility fee provided in this section by 2.3 ordinance adopted by a two-thirds vote of its governing body. 2.4 The ordinance must not be voted on or adopted until after a 2.5 public hearing has been held on the question. A notice of the 2.6 time, place, and purpose of the hearing must be published at 2.7 least once in each week for two successive weeks in the official 2.8 newspaper of the municipality, or in a newspaper of general 2.9 content and circulation within the municipality, and the last 2.10 notice must be published at least seven days before the 2.11 hearing. The municipality must file the ordinance of record, if 2.12 adopted, with the county recorder and provide a copy to the 2.13 county auditor. 2.14 Subd. 4. [COLLECTION.] The ordinance adopted under this 2.15 section must provide for the billing and payment of the fee on a 2.16 monthly, quarterly, or other basis as directed by the governing http://wvvw.revisonleg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S0366.0&session=ls84 1/24/2005 ?age 2 of 2 4,---••••nn • ••• 0..••••••-•,10.“,x11. 2.17 body. Fees that, as of October 15 each calendar year, have 2.18 remained unpaid for at least 30 days must be certified to the 2.19 county auditor for collection as a special assessment payable in 2.20 the following calendar year against the affected property. 2.21 Subd. 5. [MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT.] A municipality may not 2.22 impose the fee provided in this section unless it has prepared 2.23 and adopted a master plan that includes information on the 2.24 proposed reconstruction, facility upgrade, and maintenance for 2.25 the following five years. A capital improvement plan, public 2.26 facility plan, or comparable information qualifies as a master 2.27 plan. The master plan must include information on the proposed 2.28 funding sources for all projects required to be included in the 2.29 plan. The master plan must be adopted by the governing body 2.30 following a hearing and publication of notice of the hearing, as 2.31 provided in subdivision 3. 2.32 Subd. 6. [USE OF PROCEEDS.] Revenues from the fee 2.33 authorized in this section may only be used for specific 2.34 projects listed in the master plan. The municipality may not 2.35 accumulate revenues from the fee beyond the estimated costs for 2.36 reconstructions, facility upgrades, and maintenance that are 3.1 described in the master plan. 3.2 Subd. 7. [TRIP-GENERATION DATA.] The fee imposed must be 3.3 calculated based on the relationship of the revenues the 3.4 municipality proposes to generate and a trip-generation rate for 3.5 each type of land use based on the most current edition of the 3.6 Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual. 3.7 Subd. 8. [APPEALS.] A property owner may administratively 3.8 appeal the amount of the fee or the trip-generation rate to the 3.9 governing body within 60 days after notice of the amount of fee 3.10 due has been mailed to the property owner. The appeal must be 3.11 in writing, signed, and dated by the property owner, and must 3.12 state the reasons why the amount of the fee or the 3.13 trip-generation rate is incorrect. The decision of the 3.14 governing body may be appealed to the tax court in the same 3.15 manner as appeals of determinations regarding property tax 3.16 matters provided for in chapter 271. If the governing body does 3.17 not make a decision within six months after the filing of an 3.18 administrative appeal, the property owner may elect to appeal to 3.19 the tax court. The appeal procedures in this subdivision are in 3.20 lieu of any appeal procedures relating to special assessments 3.21 provided for in chapter 429. 3.22 Subd. 9. [SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS; BONDS; PROPERTY TAX 3.23 LEVIES.] The use of the street utility fee by a municipality 3.24 does not restrict the municipality from imposing other measures 3.25 to pay the costs of local street reconstruction, facility 3.26 upgrades, or maintenance, such as levying special assessments, 3.27 issuing bond debt, or levying property taxes. 3.28 [EFFECTIVE DATE.] This section is effective for fees 3.29 payable in 2006 and thereafter. Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislation to your House Member or State Senator. For Legislative Staff or for directions to the Capitol, visit the Contact Us page. General questions or comments. http://www.revisonleg.state.mn.usibin/bldbill.php?bill-S0366.0&session=ls84 1/24/2005 Minnesota State Legislature F366 Status in Senate for Legislative Session 84 ?age 1 of 1 Legislature Home I Links to the World I Help I Advanced Search House I Senate I Joint Departments and Commissions I Bill Search and Status I Statutes, Laws, and Rules 01/24/05 SF0366 Status in Senate for Legislative Session 84 Bill Name: SF0366 Bill Text Companion: HF0313 Bill Text Bill Status Revisor Number: 05-1308 Session Law Chapter: 0 Senate Authors Marko; Senjem; Langseth; Rest Short Cities street utility fees imposition authority Description Long Description Unofficial Actions (includes committee actions and initial committee hearings) Body Date Action Description / Committee Page Roll Call Senate 01/19/2005 Introduction and first reading 101 Senate 01/19/2005 Referred to Transportation Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislation to your House Member or State Senator. For Legislative Staff or for directions to the Capitol, visit the Contact Us page. General questions or comments. last updated: 01/19/2005 (tmo) http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/oages/search Rfq 1 Ski-XI-11c detail rthr011=CprlatAR,C=C-pnlgg 52, < nn c 1 in A PI AtIC k I 11 n ICH U (cHIE D/SrRm Ect r cepy ols e ext.) 7:C. D4 TAMA' [-RCA I 6,10S- A-1 6E7/ a cc, APPE 0 (6.' c siD 4gc- CITY OF EDINA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 -Edina Transportation Commission recommended the FINAL DRAFT on January 6, 2005 for City Council consideration. -Edina City Council action taken on CITY OF EDINA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Contributors: Transportation Commission Joni Kelly Bennett Dean Dovolis Warren Plante Fred Richards (Chair) Marie Thorpe Les Wanninger Jean White Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., Traffic Engineer/Assistant Engineer Wayne D. Houle, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Edina Engineering City of Edina Transportation Policy i FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Sheet i Table of Contents ii I. INTRODUCTION 1 Background 1 Purpose 1 Vision 1 II. POLICY FRAMEWORK 2 Introduction 2 City of Edina Transportation Commission Policy 2 III. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 7 Transportation Commission Policy Adoption 7 Action Plan 7 Sources of Funding 8 Plan Costs and Acceptance Requirements 8 IV. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN 9 Introduction 9 Process and Schedule 10 Criteria for Screening 14 Scoring for Ranking 15 Removal of Traffic Calming Measures 16 Traffic Management Devices — City of Edina Approved Options 17 Benefited Area (Assessed Area) 18 APPENDICES Appendix A — Definitions Appendix B — Traffic Management Devices / Measures Appendix C — Application Request for Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan Appendix D — Acknowledgments and References City of Edina Transportation Policy ii FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 I. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Sustaining, improving and operating a sound street and transportation system are integral parts of the long-term vision of the City. Congestion on the regional roadway system and the failure of that system to accommodate the continued growth in traffic volumes has created and exacerbated traffic volumes, speed and congestion on local streets. These conditions adversely affect the quality of life of the City's residents and the activities of the businesses located in the City. The Edina City Council in December 2003 established the Transportation Commission to address these issues and to work to improve the local transportation system, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Vision 20/20. PURPOSE The Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) was established to advise the Council on matters relating to the operation of the local street system with respect to traffic volumes, congestion, and functional classification, but not maintenance activities, of the City; to review and comment on plans to enhance mass transit opportunities in the City; to evaluate methods for traffic calming and other speed and volume mitigation measures and to recommend their implementation where appropriate; and to review the findings of the Local Traffic Task Force (2002-2003) and offer recommendations for implementation. VISION Edina will maintain a transportation system that will accommodate the efficient movement of people and goods throughout the City while fostering safe and livable neighborhoods and business areas connected by aesthetically beautiful, pedestrian and bicycle friendly streets and pathways. City of Edina Transportation Policy 1 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 II. POLICY FRAMEWORK INTRODUCTION The Edina Transportation Commission Policy was developed as a supplement to the City of Edina Transportation Plan (March 1999). The purpose of this policy is to guide the ETC in the identification and evaluation of traffic and transportation issues in the community and the prioritization of projects and improvements to the transportation system. The policy is created to encourage public input and decisions that will be made on quantitative, qualitative and objective factors. CITY OF EDINA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY The City of Edina Transportation Commission Policy implements the purposes and objectives of the ETC as provided in Section 1225 of the City Code (Transportation Commission). The Policy also incorporates the amended policies of the Transportation Plan as follows: Roadway Design Design roadway facilities constructed in conjunction with new developments according to the intended function. 2. Upgrade existing roadways when warranted by demonstrated volume, safety or functional needs, taking into consideration environmental limitations. 3. Emphasize improvements to management, maintenance and utilization of the existing street and highway system. 4. Design residential street systems to discourage through traffic and to be compatible with other transportation modes including transit, bicycle and walking, including traffic calming measures on local streets and, in some cases, collector streets. 5. Design collector and arterial roadway corridors to be compatible with other transportation modes including transit, bicycle and pedestrian. 6. Use adequate transitions and buffers including but not limited to earth berms, walls, landscaping and distance to mitigate the undesirable impact of high volume roadways. 7. Promote use of sound mitigating features (noise walls) and aesthetic barriers along residential development adjacent to high volume roadways, and, where economically feasible, make property owners and land developers responsible for noise attenuation at new developments near high volume roadways. City of Edina Transportation Policy 2 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 8. Encourage beautification of local corridors, where appropriate, with amenities such as boulevard trees, decorative street lighting, and monuments. Roadway Function and Access 1. Review and update regional and local functional street classification and coordinate with adjacent cities and Hennepin County. Establish subcategory classifications and criteria for local streets if warranted. Revise local roadway classifications when warranted. 2. Provide logical street networks to connect residential areas to the regional highway system and local activity centers. 3. Adequately control access points to the regional roadway system (including minor arterials) in terms of driveway openings and side street intersections. 4. Provide access to the local street system (including collector and local streets) in a manner that balances the need to safely and efficiently operate the street system with the need for access to land. 5. Encourage intra-area trips on minor arterials rather than the principal arterial system, and promote serving regional trips on the metropolitan highway system. 6. Separate, to the extent possible, conflicting uses on the public street system in order to minimize safety problems. Give special attention to pedestrian and bicycle routes. 7. Provide access to redeveloping sites using current functional classification and standards rather than the existing access at the sites. 8. Annually review and monitor citywide traffic volumes, congestion, existing traffic calming devices, accident history, vehicle violation history, speed limits and enforcement. 9. Educate public on vehicle operations including public relations campaigns that focus on individual responsibilities to each other rather than individual rights. 10. Review and recommend traffic calming policies and consider traffic calming implementation where requested by residents. 11. Implement measures to reduce non-local, cut-through traffic in cooperation with County and State efforts by developing a local traffic calming policy to mitigate the effects of cut-through traffic. Identify the origin and destination of cut-through traffic. City of Edina Transportation Policy 3 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 12. When requested by the Planning Commission, review landuse that may impact traffic implementations. Continue to monitor adjacent community redevelopment and activity that impact the City of Edina. Roadway Maintenance and Operation 1. Cooperate with other agencies having jurisdiction over streets and highways in Edina to assure good roadway conditions and operating efficiency. 2. Continue the implementation of the 1-494 frontage road system and Integrated Corridor Traffic Management system through ongoing coordination with Mn/DOT, Hennepin County, and the cities of Richfield and Bloomington. 3. Maintain roads by repairing weather-related and other damage. 4. Use economic and environmentally sound management techniques for snow and ice removal. 5. Replace substandard bridges and bridges that present safety or traffic problems, and include bicycle and pedestrian features. Transit/TDM 1. Participate in the 1-494 Commission to encourage all forms of travel demand management in order to reduce vehicle miles of travel, reduce petroleum consumption, and improve air quality. 2. Review all major new developments in light of the potential for ridesharing including bus accessibility, preferential parking for carpools/vanpools, and mixed-use development. 3. Support HOV bypasses and other preferential treatments for transit and high occupancy vehicles on streets and highways. 4. Include transit planning in the construction or upgrading of streets and highways. 5. Pursue development of a demonstration project to provide a circulator system within the Greater Southdale Area. 6. Encourage the legislature to increase funding for efficient mass transit. Review and recommend policies requiring a mass transit component with all types of development. City of Edina Transportation Policy 4 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Parking 1. Review new developments for adequacy of parking based upon need, the potential for joint use of parking facilities and opportunities to encourage ridesharing. 2. Continue to limit on-street parking in and near congested commercial areas. 3. Find location of an additional Park and Ride facility located in close proximity to major mass transit routes. 4. Work with appropriate commissions such as Planning and Zoning to review City Code, Section 850.08 Parking and Circulation to identify parking based upon needs. 5. Evaluate present parking facilities found in Edina. Where appropriate, amend Section 850 to give commuter parking some spaces in City-owned ramps. Pedestrian/Bicycle 1. Provide accessibility to pedestrians and bicycles at major activity centers, including necessary storage facilities (e.g. bicycle racks and bicycle lockers) near visible points of entry, wide sidewalks where there is no boulevard or sidewalks with boulevards. Appropriate signage should be present at these facilities. 2. Create pedestrian and bicycle interconnections among major generators, with continuity across major roadways and other barriers. Include painted striping on roadways and paths designated as bicycle riding areas. 3. Provide sidewalks and safe crossing in high pedestrian danger areas, including high- traffic streets, commercial areas, park and school areas, areas with transit access, and in high-density residential locations. 4. Provide adequate signage along all bike paths including areas of conflict with pedestrians and automobile traffic. 5. Review and recommend construction of pedestrian and bike paths throughout Edina cooperatively with the Three Rivers Park District and Hennepin County. 6. Promote safe walking, bicycling and driving. Promote vehicle driver respect for bicycles and pedestrians along with bicyclists and pedestrian observance of signs and designated paths. City of Edina Transportation Policy 5 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Goods Movement 1. Serve major truck users and intermodal facilities with good minor arterial access to the metropolitan highway system. Funding and Jurisdiction 1. Pursue and support regional or multi-community funding sources for improvements that provide regional or multi-community benefit. Support public funding for transit. 2. Support research efforts into more efficient and cost-effective management, maintenance and replacement of street surfaces. 3. Support governmental jurisdiction over roadways that reflect the role of the roadway in the overall transportation system. 4. Develop and support legislation permitting a transportation utility. City of Edina Transportation Policy 6 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 III. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION This section provides the steps necessary to implement the transportation policies and discusses a general strategy for carrying out the policies. TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY ADOPTION By adopting the Transportation Commission Policy, the City Council establishes the guidelines by which decisions regarding transportation facilities are made in Edina. It should be revised as necessary to respond to changing conditions and needs, both locally and regionally. The policy should be circulated widely so the residents and the business community are aware of the opportunities and limitations that the policy provides, thus enabling all interested parties to voice their concerns and issues with full knowledge. ACTION PLAN Short Term (Immediate): • Review and approve Transportation Commission Policy: o Review and identify problems and causes of Edina traffic issues (determine what is fact versus perception). o Review volume and speed criteria. o Present Draft Policy to Council. o Open public comment period. o Recommend to Council for approval. • Review Local Traffic Task Force Findings and Recommendations as it reflects the adoptive policies and procedures. Rank the six identified traffic "issue areas" and review and recommend action for them as Neighborhood Traffic Management Projects to the City Council. • Review and approve a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP). • Publicize transportation issues to be studied by ETC. • Establish a means for public communication for transportation issues: o City of Edina Website o About Town o Edina Community Channel 16 PublieAseess-Statien46 o Edina Sun Current Newspaper o Local Schools • Create a citizen's guide to transportation issues City of Edina Transportation Policy 7 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Long Term (Continually): • Review and recommend Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans. • Review and update local roadway functional classification. • Hold yearly public open house for transportation issues. • Review and update Transportation Commission Policy yearly annually. • Review and make recommendations for collector and arterial roadway planned improvements. SOURCES OF FUNDING The following sources of funding are explained in more detail in the Transportation Plan. Existing Sources of Revenue: • Federal Surface Transportation Program Funds • Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) • State Aid • Special Assessments • Livable Communities Grants • Ad Valorem Taxes • Tax Increment Financing Potential Sources of Revenue: • Impact Fees • Road Access Charge • Transportation Utility PLAN COSTS AND ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS Plan acceptance requirements include educating Educate residents about the possibility that they may be asked to fund the installation and maintenance of NTMP Projects through additional taxes and/or special assessments. A typical project includes all costs accrued for the improvement including all costs to perform the preliminary studies and data collection, temporary test installations, final studies, final design and actual construction costs. All costs associated with a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan study and project will be assessed to the Benefited Area if Council approves the project for final implementation. City of Edina Transportation Policy 8 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 IV NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans (NTMP) include local, collector and arterial street studies and neighborhood area studies. These studies would be conducted by the City Engineering Department. The NTMP studies are intended to respond to speeding and excessive cut-through traffic on streets in a residential neighborhood and on multiple streets in one or more neighborhoods, yet are intended to be sensitive to areas where there may be a potential for diversion of this traffic onto other streets and/or into other neighborhoods. These plans are required to respond to traffic problems that are symptomatic of wider problems, such as congestion or lack of capacity on the arterial system. Possible solutions may include revisions to the local street to slow traffic or to completely or partially divert traffic off the street. While solutions will be considered for collector and arterial streets, only a limited number of management devices will be allowed due to State design standards and funding requirements (see Appendix B). NTMP studies are developed primarily through the City Engineering Department, with the involvement of the Transportation Commission and other City departments. They are scheduled based on available resources and given priority by factors that include, but are not limited to, the following: • Previous efforts, requests and studies in the area • Intensity and extent of the problems • Degree of conflict between traffic conditions and land uses • Availability of data • Regional improvement projects scheduled or planned • Feasibility of solutions City of Edina Transportation Policy 9 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 PROCESS AND SCHEDULE This section details the process and schedule for Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans (See Table 1). Table 1. Nei hborhood Traffic Mana ement Plan Schedule Step Item Period (Typical) - General Traffic Management Information Open House Late September Step 1 Neighborhood Traffic Management Applications Due 2nd Monday in February Step 2 Initial Screening, Scoring and Ranking of Applications Before data collection March/April/May Step 3 • Petition-to-study prepared and circulated by City staff • Presentation to ETC for recommendation and to Council for approval to order plan development May/June Step 4 Plan Development • Review and comment by Fire, Police, Public Works and Engineering, Transit and School (transportation) agencies • Public Open House • Survey-to-test circulated and evaluated by City staff • Trial Project Plan prepared June Step 5a Presentation to ETC for recommendation June Step 5b • Council approval of trial projects • Schedule temporary installations, removals and after data collection (minimum period of 2 weeks after installation) July Step 5c • Temporary installations July/August Step 6 • After data collection (trial projects) • Review and comment by Fire, Police, Public Works, Transit, and School (transportation) agencies • Prepare evaluation summaries September Step 7a Mail Surveys October Step 7b • Summarize returned surveys • Open House November Step 8a Recommendations to ETC, Public comment December Step 8b Recommendations to Council, Improvement Hearing, Preliminary Assessment Hearing, Order Project January Step 9a Survey and Design February / March Step 9b Final approval of plans by Council, Set bid schedule April Step 9c Letting, Assessment Hearing May Step 9d Construction June / July Step 10 After data collection July / August Step 11 Follow-up Evaluation Within 3 to 5 yrs City of Edina Transportation Policy 10 FINAL DRAFT— January 6, 2005 STEPS: 1. Study Request (Application) Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) studies can be requested by individual citizens or by neighborhood organizations. Requests to consider a NTMP study must be in writing and are due by 4:30 p.m. on the second Monday in February of each year. See Appendix C for application request. 2. Preliminary Review and Priority Ranking City staff gathers and reviews preliminary data about the traffic request including volume, speed and accident information and applies the criteria for screening and ranking to prioritize for trial and evaluation of a NTMP. The Engineering Department ranks the studies based on score (methodology outlined under "Scoring for Ranking") and schedules order of trial studies for ETC review. The number of trial studies depends on equipment and personnel availability. Some trial studies may be deferred if not feasible due to conflicting construction, development in the area, county or state restrictions or other concerns. Requests are also reviewed by the Engineering Department for other possible solutions. If the preliminary review shows that an immediate hazard to the public exists, the City may choose to address the problem separately from the NTMP. Studies are ranked citywide, based on the point score from Step 2. The highest-ranking study is undertaken first. The number of studies initiated each year depends on City resources. The City notifies all study requestors of the status of their request after Step 2. The City also notifies the ETC of the status of all ranked studies and asks for comments. Once in the process, a study is considered in the annual priority ranking step for up to 3 years. If, after 3 years, a study has not received a high enough priority to proceed, it is no longer eligible for consideration. This time limitation ensures that the study request has not become obsolete because of changing traffic conditions and/or new residents in the area. The study requestor is notified when the 3-year limit expires. Then, a new request may be made to re-enter the study in the program. Step 1 is then repeated to obtain current information. 3. Petition-to-Study If a study is ranked high enough to proceed, a petition-to-study must be circulated within a defined study area. City of Edina Transportation Policy 11 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 The Transportation Commission City staff establishes the petition-to-study area (benefited area), based on information obtained in the preliminary review. At a minimum, this area is generally defined as those households and businesses fronting on the affected segments of the study area (see Benefited Area - Assessed Area on page 18). In the caso " The purpose of the petition-to-study is to determine the level of agreement amo g_the cf___ study benefited area's residents regarding the problem they want to address. The etitiori-} to-study only defines the issue and surveys the benefited area that will be assesse or all costs of the improvement. It is used only to determine if the residents within the benefited area agree with the issue that has been requested to be addressed. City staff A V\g' prepares the petition, describing the problem and the procedures to be followed if a study _ is undertaken. The City then circulates the petition. Each household is entitled_ter-orie- AV-- signature. Property owners not living in the study area are not included in-th-e-petition-to- ctilv3\ study process. To proceed, a minimum of 30% of al sur ve i1[ be returned with 65% '---- of those returned surveys indicating agreement with th ntified issue. The applications and petitions-to-study are presented to the ETC and the City Council. The City Council must order the plan development for the study to move forward to step 4. 4. Plan Development Based on direction from the Council, the NTMP study moves forward. The NTMP is reviewed by the City's Fire, Police, Public Works and Engineering Departments, and by transportation agencies including transit and schools. The ETC then holds a public meeting for the neighborhood and general public to inform residents of the proposed project, to describe the NTMP process, and to gather additional information about the traffic problems and related neighborhood needs. Plan development consists of the following steps: • Assessment of problems and needs • Identification of project goals and objectives • Determination of the benefited area and impacted area • Identification of evaluation criteria • Establishment of threshold criteria (on project-by-project basis) • Development of alternative plans/solutions The first two steps are accomplished through public meetings, neighborhood association meetings, and ETC meetings. Additionally, City staff prepares a survey-to-test describing the proposed project and calling for a temporary test installation. Staff then circulates the City of Edina Transportation Policy 12 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 survey-to-test within the defined afea—( impacted area, ) which is defined by the Transportation Commission. • • : : - - , " • : regufrement, if Each household and business is entitled to one survey. The survey is evaluated and City staff members prepare a trial installation plan. The City proposes solutions based on the citizen responses and sound engineering principles. Possible criteria, solutions and their impacts are evaluated by the ETC, City staff and other affected agencies. 5. Test Installation The NTMP is presented to the ETC and the City Council. If recommended by the ETC and approved by Council, the test will be installed for between 3 and 12 months. If the City Traffic Engineer finds that an unforeseen hazard is created by the test, the test installation may be revised or removed. 6. Project Evaluation Following the test period, the City evaluates how well the test has performed in terms of the previously defined problems and objectives. The evaluation includes the subject street and streets affected by the project, and is based on before-and-after speeds and volumes, impacts on emergency vehicles or commercial uses, and other evaluation criteria determined during step 4. If, in the evaluation, desired improvements in quality of life are not met to the satisfaction of the ETC and City staff, the traffic plan may be modified and additional testing conducted. The final test results are reviewed with the ETC, area residents, and relevant City staff, and the information is distributed during the survey stage. The City will not forward a project to the next step if the test results show it may be unsafe or it violates NTMP policy or other City policies or regulations. 7. Survey To forward the project to the stage where permanent implementation is approved (step 8), a survey from households, businesses and non-resident property owners within a-defined survey area ( the impacted area ) is obtained through a mail survey administered by the City. The ETC then holds an open house for the neighborhood to update residents about the proposed project. City of Edina Transportation Policy 13 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 8. City Council Action Based on the project evaluation and survey, City staff members prepare a feasibility report and recommendations for the ETC and City Council. The report outlines the process followed, includes the project findings, states the reasons for the recommendations and includes a preliminary assessment roll. The feasibility report and preliminary assessment roll will be presented for a recommendation by the ETC before final action by the City Council. If the feasibility report and preliminary assessment roll are adopted, the project is ordered. If the feasibility report and preliminary assessment roll are not adopted, the plans and specifications will not be ordered and the project is terminated. The project is dropped from the list and the neighborhood is not able to reapply for five years. 9. Design, Final Assessment Roll and Construction Final design and construction are administered by the City and are generally completed within 12 months after final action by the City Council. City staff prepares and recommends the final assessment roll as required under authority granted by Minnesota Statute Chapter 429 10. Monitoring The City monitors constructed traffic management devices and gathers post data, including volume, speed and accident information. 11. Follow-up Evaluation Within 3 to 5 years after construction of an NTMP project, the City conducts a follow-up evaluation to determine if the project's goals and objectives continue to be met. This evaluation may entail traffic studies of volumes, speeds and accidents, as well as public opinion surveys. CRITERIA FOR SCREENING Each NTMP study is initially reviewed and screened for general qualification for this process. The following prescribes the general criteria used by staff to determine the eligibility for a NTMP study: 1. Roadway Classifications • Eligible: All Edina streets under the Public Works Department jurisdiction. • Not Eligible: All roadways within Edina designated as County, State, or Federal Highways. City of Edina Transportation Policy 14 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 2. Minimum Distance of the traffic calming device from the following (all must apply for eligibility): • Traffic Signals (except neckdowns) 300 ft. • Stop Signs (except neckdowns) 300 ft. • Other Traffic Calming Devices 300 ft. • Driveway/Alleys 20 ft. • Horizontal or Vertical Curves affecting sight lines 200 ft. • Railroad Crossing 300 ft. • Dead End 400 ft. 3. Access: • No dead-end created without adequate turn around on public roadway right-of- way roadway. 4. Not-Critical Emergency Route: • To be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Chief. All four eligibility requirements must be met for scoring and consideration. SCORING FOR RANKING The following criteria defines the scoring for ranking that is used to prioritize a requested NTMP study as described in Step 2 of the NTMP process: 1. Sidewalk adjacent to the benefited area (0 to100 points): • None + 100 • All of 1 side + 50 • All of 2 sides + 0 2. Public school yard, play lot, playground development adjacent to benefited area (0 to 200 points): • None + 0 • All of 1 side + 100 • All of 2 sides + 200 3. Residential development adjacent to benefited area (0 to 100 points): • None + 0 • All of 1 side + 50 • All of 2 sides + 100 City of Edina Transportation Policy 15 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 4. Number of reported correctable crashes based on last 5 years of available data (0 to 200 points): • 20 per crash; maximum of 200 points 5. Average residential density adjacent to benefited area (0 to 50 points): • 50 points maximum • (0 dwelling units per adjacent 100 un. ft. = 0 points • 5+ dwelling units per adjacent 100 lin. ft. = 50 points) 6. Average Daily Traffic Volumes - ADT (0 to 200 points): • ADT divided by 10; maximum 200 points • For intersection, street segments or multiple streets, use higher volume street 7. Percent over speed limit - ADT (0 to 200 points): • Percent over speed limit times 2.5 (times 100); maximum 200 points (80% over limit) • For intersection, street segments or multiple streets, use street with higher speeds Scoring is based on the criteria pertaining to the benefited area. Correctable crashes are determined by the Engineering Department. REMOVAL OF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES The City of Edina's Traffic Calming Program is intended to avoid the costly installation and later costly removal of traffic calming devices. On occasion, it may be determined to be desirable to remove a traffic calming device. If the removal is City initiated due to safety/crash issues, the removal will be at City expense. If the removal is at the neighborhood's request, the removal will be charged to the property owners (previously defined benefited area). The following procedure will be used for neighborhood initiated removals: 1. Petition requesting removal is submitted to the City Traffic Engineer. 2. A survey, including estimated cost for removal and data collected previously on the device, is mailed to each property owner in the benefited area. 3. Surveys are summarized 30 days after mailing. Staff makes recommendation to the ETC. City of Edina Transportation Policy 16 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 4. ETC forwards a recommendation to Council. If the recommendation is for removal, improvement and assessment hearings are scheduled for Council. 5. Final approval of plans by Council. Set bid schedule. 6. Letting, final assessment and construction. 7. New traffic calming devices will not be considered for five years in benefited area of removed device. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES — CITY OF EDINA APPROVED OPTIONS This sections lists traffic management devices and methods that are approved for use in the City of Edina. Appendix B contains a detailed description and overview of each item. Speed Reduction Traffic Calming Measures: • Speed Hump • Speed Table • Raised Crosswalk • Raised Intersection • Textured Pavements • Center Island Narrowings • Gateway Treatments • Neckdowns • Choker • Chicane • Realigned Intersections • Traffic Circle • Roundabout Volume Reduction Traffic Calming Measures: • Diagonal Road Closure • Partial Street Closure • Cul-de-sac • Median Barriers • Forced Turn Islands Education and Enforcement: • Targeted Police Enforcement • Radar Speed Display Units • Neighborhood Traffic Safety Campaigns City of Edina Transportation Policy 17 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Regulatory Measures: • Stop Sign • Turn Restrictions • One Way Streets • Traffic Signals ("Rest on Red" and "Rest on Green") • Pavement Striping (Centerline, Edge and Transverse) BENEFITED AREA (ASSESSED AREA) This section generally defines the benefited area of the traffic management devices for use in determining the assessment area. The following prescribes the typical benefited areas, but may be adjusted by the ETC on a project by project basis. Speed Hump, Speed Table, Raised Intersection, Raised Crosswalk, Textured Pavement, Center Island Narrowings, Neckdowns, Gateway Treatments, Choker, Chicane, Traffic Circle: • Benefited area extends 300 feet from the device along the street affected by the device, or to the nearest stop sign or traffic signal, whichever is less. Diagonal Road Closure, Round-a-bout: • Benefited area extends to the next intersection on each leg of the intersection. Partial Street Closure, Realigned Intersection, Forced Turn Island, Median Barrier: • Benefited area extends to the next intersection on the leg of the intersection partially closed, realigned or restricted. Cul-De-Sac: • Benefited area extends from the point of closure to the next intersection on the leg that is closed. City of Edina Transportation Policy 18 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 APPENDICES APPENDIX A — DEFINITIONS APPENDIX B — TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES / MEASURES APPENDIX C — APPLICATION REQUEST FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX D - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND REFERENCES City of Edina Transportation Policy FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 APPENDIX A - DEFINITIONS City of Edina Transportation Policy FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Definitions Benefited Area — The properties expected to receive the majority of the positive impacts from the proposed traffic calming. (Assessed Area) Center Island Narrowings — An island or barrier in the center of a street that serves to segregate traffic. (Midblock medians, median slowpoints, median chokers, central islands.) Chicane — Mainline deviations to deter the path of travel so that the street is not a straight line (by the installation of offset curb extensions). (Deviations, serpentines, reversing curves, twists.) Choker — Physical street narrowing to expand sidewalks and landscaped areas; possibly adding medians, on street parking, etc. (Pinch points, lane narrowing, midblock narrowings, midblock yield points, constrictions.) Circulator Service — A means provided within a major activity center, (such as a regional business concentration, a metro center or community) for movement from place to place within the center; such a system may be entirely pedestrian or may use transit. Collector Street — Roadways that are designated to "collect" traffic from neighborhood streets and get that traffic to arterial streets. Collector streets are described in the City of Edina Comprehensive Plan. Corridor Studies — Typically, highway corridor studies focus on a segment of a particular travel corridor or travel shed. Land use, access issues, capacity, level of service, geometries and safety concerns are studied; alternatives analyzed; and recommendations made. Corridor studies are usually prepared with the participation and cooperation of the affected communities and governmental agencies. Recommendations for improvements are often incorporated into the local comprehensive plans of the participating cities and continue to be used by implementing agencies as improvements in the corridor are made. Cul-de-sac — Physical street closure resulting in a dead end (no outlet) constructed with a circular turn-around area. Cut-through Traffic — Traffic that intrudes into a residential subdivision to avoid congestion or other problem from an arterial or other high level street. Diagonal Road Closures — A barrier placed diagonally across a four-legged intersection, interrupting traffic flow across the intersection. This type of barrier may be used to create a maze-like effect in a neighborhood. (Diagonal diverter.) City of Edina Transportation Policy A-1 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Feasibility Report — A report analyzing the recommended type of construction, the estimated construction cost, estimated engineering cost and the estimated assessment. Forced Turn Islands — Small traffic islands installed at intersections to channel turning movements. (Forced turn barriers, diverters.) Functional Classification (of Roadways) — In accordance with the City of Edina Transportation Plan (March 1999), the City has adopted the Metropolitan Council's functional classification system designation and guidelines for use in the City's roadway system. Functional classification involves determining what role each roadway should perform and ensures that certain transportation and non-transportation factors are taken into account in the planning and design of roadways. A complete description of the functional classification system criteria is found in Appendix D of the Transportation Plan (March 1999). The following criteria lists typical vehicle volumes carried on roadways: Principal Arterials: 15,000 to 200,000 vehicles per day Minor Arterials: 5,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day Collector Streets: 1,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day Local Streets: Less than 1,000 vehicles per day Gateway Treatment — Treatment to a street that includes a sign, banner, landscaping or other structure that helps to communicate a sense of neighborhood identity. Guide Signs — A sign that shows route designations, destinations, directions, distances, services, points of interest, or other geographical, recreational, or cultural information. Impacted Area - Area for a project that is defined as those residences along local residential streets that are positively or negatively impacted by excessive through traffic volumes and speeding, or that may be positively or negatively impacted by proposed traffic calming. Inconvenience caused by limitation of access is not considered to be a negative impact under this definition. Infrastructure — Fixed facilities, such as roadways or railroad tracks; permanent structures. Level of Service (as related to highways) — The different operating conditions that occur on a lane or roadway when accommodating various traffic volumes. It is a qualitative measure of the effect of traffic flow factors, such as speed and travel time, interruption, freedom to maneuver, driver comfort and convenience, and indirectly, safety and operating costs. It is expressed as levels of service "A" through "F." Level "A" is a condition of free traffic flow where there is little or no restriction in speed or maneuverability caused by presence of other vehicles. Level "F" is forced-flow operation at low speed with many stoppages, the highway acting as a storage area. Local Street — A roadway that connects blocks within neighborhoods. City of Edina Transportation Policy A-2 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Local Traffic — Traffic that originates from or is destined to a location within a neighborhood or area. Major Street — The street normally carrying the higher volume of vehicular traffic (vs. Minor Street). Median Barriers — Raised island or barrier in the center of the street that serves to segregate traffic. Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) — The portion of the metropolitan area identified in the Regional Blueprint where development and redevelopment is to occur and in which urban facilities and services are to be provided. The purpose of the MUSA is to define the areas within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area that are eligible for "urban services", specifically sewers, municipal water systems and particular types of transportation systems. This boundary line is defined and maintained by the Metropolitan Council to assist in the orderly development of the metropolitan area. All of Edina is within the MUSA area. "A" Minor Arterials — Roadways within the metropolitan area that are more regionally significant than others. These roadways are classified into the following groups: a) Relievers — Minor arterials that provide direct relief for traffic on major metropolitan highways. These roads include the closest routes parallel to the principal arterials within the core, urban reserve and urban staging areas. These roadways are proposed to accommodate medium-length trips (less than eight miles) as well as to provide relief to congested principal arterials. Improvements focus on providing additional capacity for through traffic. b) Expanders — Routes that provide a way to make connections between developing areas outside the interstate ring or beltway. These routes are located circumferentially beyond the area reasonably served by the beltway. These roadways are proposed to serve medium to long suburb-to-suburb trips. Improvements focus on preserving or obtaining right-of-way. c) Connectors — This subgroup of "A" minor arterials are those roads that would provide good, safe connections among town centers in the urban reserve, urban staging and rural areas within and near the seven counties. Improvements focus on safety and load-carrying capacity. d) Augmenters — The fourth group of "A" minor arterials are those roads that augment principal arterials within the interstate ring or beltway. The principal arterial network in this area is in place. However, the network of principal arterials serving the area is not in all cases sufficient relative to the density of development that the network serves. In these situations, these key minor City of Edina Transportation Policy A-3 FINAL DRAFT — January 6,2005 arterials serve many long-range trips. Improvements focus on providing additional capacity for through traffic. Minor Street — The street normally carrying the lower volume of vehicular traffic (vs. Major Street). Municipal State Aid (MSA) Route — A designated City roadway that receives state funds as allocated from the State gas tax for maintenance and construction. Approximately 20 percent of the City roadways are designated as MSA routes. State of Minnesota rules and standards, in addition to local jurisdiction guidelines, apply to these roadways. City of Edina Transportation Policy A-4 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Neckdowns — Physical curb reduction of road width at intersections. Similar to lane narrowing but used at intersection(s). Widening of street comers at intersections to discourage cut-through traffic, to improve pedestrian access and to help define neighborhoods. (Nubs, bulb-outs, knuckles, intersection narrowings, comer bulges, safe crosses.) Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) — Formalized process where residents, commissioners and City staff evaluate the various requirements, benefits and tradeoffs of traffic calming projects within neighborhoods. The overall objectives for the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan are to improve neighborhood livability by mitigating the impact of vehicular traffic on residential neighborhoods; to promote safe and pleasant conditions for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and residents on neighborhood streets; to encourage citizen involvement and effort in neighborhood traffic management activities; to make efficient use of City resources by prioritizing traffic management requests; and to support the Comprehensive Plan policy that livability and safety of established residential neighborhoods be protected in transportation operations. Non-Local Traffic — Traffic that does not originate from or is not destined to a location within a neighborhood or area. Off-Peak Period — Time of day outside the peak period (see peak period). Partial Street Closure — Physical blockage of one direction of traffic on a two-way street. The open lane of traffic is signed "One way", and traffic from the blocked lane is not allowed to go around the barrier through the open lane. (Half closure.) Peak Hour — The hour during the peak period when travel demand is highest. Typically, peak hours are found to be from 7 to 8 a.m. and from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. Peak Period — Typically, the time between 6:30 and 9:00 a.m. and between 3:30 and 6 p.m. on a weekday, when traffic is usually heavy. Person Trip — A one-way journey between two points by one person in a vehicle. Photo-radar Speed Enforcement — An automated camera system used to enforce speed limits. It includes the camera, an attached radar "gun" and a display that shows the speed of each passing vehicle. When a speeding vehicle is detected, the photo radar system takes a picture of the driver and the license plate. The registered owner of the vehicle then receives a ticket in the mail. This enforcement method is not legal in Minnesota. Photo-Red Light Enforcement — Implementation of a photo red light, an automated camera and computer system can be mounted on a traffic signal pole at an intersection for red light enforcement. Photo red light takes pictures of any vehicles that run a red light, records the time elapsed since the light turned red and the vehicle entered the intersection, and issues a ticket. The photo red light systems are typically installed at key intersections City of Edina Transportation Policy A-5 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 that have a high number of accidents. This enforcement method is not legal in Minnesota. Platoon — A group of vehicles or pedestrians traveling together as a group, either voluntarily or involuntarily because of traffic signal controls, geometries, or other factors. Principal Arterials — The high capacity highways that make up the metropolitan highway system, including all interstate freeways. Radar Speed Display Units — Driver feedback signs that use radar to provide motorists with an instant message, displayed on a reader board, telling them how fast they are driving. Raised Crosswalk — A speed table designed as a pedestrian crossing, generally used at mid-block locations. (Raised crossings, sidewalk extensions.) Raised Intersection — A raised plateau where roads intersect. The plateau is generally 4" above the surrounding street. (Raised junctions, intersection humps, plateaus.) Realigned Intersections — Physical realignment of intersection typically used to promote better through movements for a major roadway (vs. a minor roadway). (Modified intersections.) Regional Blueprint — The Metropolitan Council plan that sets a general direction for future development patterns in the metropolitan area and establishes guidelines for making decisions about major regional facilities that are needed to support the commercial, industrial and residential development of the area. It establishes urban and rural areas and certain development policies for different geographic policy areas. Regulatory Signs — A sign that gives notice to road users of traffic laws or regulations. Right-of-Way (Assignment) — The permitting of vehicles and/or pedestrians to proceed in a lawful manner in preference to other vehicles or pedestrians by the display of sign or signal indications. Roadway striping — Highlighting various areas of the road to increase the driver's awareness of certain conditions (e.g., edge of road striping to create a narrowing/slowing effect while defining space for cyclists). Roundabout — Raised circular areas (similar to medians) placed at intersections. Drivers travel in a counterclockwise direction around the circle. Modern roundabouts are "yield upon entry", meaning that cars in the circle have the right of way and cars entering the circle must wait to do so until the path is clear. When a roundabout is placed in an intersection, vehicles may not travel in a straight line. (Rotaries.) City of Edina Transportation Policy A-6 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Signal Preemption — Usually referred to in this plan as a technology that triggers the green go-ahead on meters or signal lights to allow emergency vehicles (and sometimes transit vehicles) to move more quickly through signalized intersections. Speed— Speed is defined based on the following classifications: a) Advisory Speed — A recommended speed for all vehicles operating on a section of highway and based on the highway design, operating characteristics, and conditions. b) Design Speed — A selected speed used to determine the various geometric design features of a roadway. c) 85th-Percentile Speed — The speed at or below which 85 percent of the motorized vehicles travel. d) Posted Speed — The speed limit determined by law and shown on Speed Limit signs. e) Statutory Speed — A speed limit established by legislative action that typically is applicable for highways with specified design, functional, jurisdictional and/or location characteristic and is not necessarily shown on Speed Limit signs. Speed Hump —Wave-shaped paved humps in the street. The height of the speed hump determines how fast it may be navigated without causing discomfort to the driver or damage to the vehicle. Discomfort increases as speed over the hump increases. Typically speed humps are placed in a series rather than singularly. (Road humps, undulations.) Speed Limit — The maximum (or minimum) speed applicable to a section of highway or roadway as established by law. Speed Table — Trapezoidal shaped speed humps in the street, similar to speed humps. (Trapezoidal humps, speed platforms.) Speed Zone — A section of highway with a speed limit that is established by law but which may be different from a legislatively specified statutory speed limit Street Closure — Street closed to motor vehicles using planters, bollards, or barriers, etc. Targeted Police Enforcement — Specific monitoring of speeding and other violations by police due to observed, frequent law disobedience. Textured Pavements — A change in pavement texture (e.g., asphalt road to brick crossing) that helps to make drivers aware of a change in the driving environment. City of Edina Transportation Policy A-7 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Traffic Calming — A combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non- motorized street users. Traffic calming involves changes in street alignment, installation of barriers, and other physical measures to reduce traffic speeds and cut-through volumes in the interest of street safety, livability and other public purposes. Traffic calming measures are intended to be self-enforcing. Traffic calming measures rely on the laws of physics rather than human psychology to slow down traffic. Traffic Circle — Circular, raised island placed within the middle of intersections, requiring vehicles to divert around them, potentially forcing drivers to slow down as they traverse around the circle. (Intersection islands, similar to roundabouts.) Traffic Signal Control Systems — The degree of traffic management of an arterial is grouped and defined as follows: a) Fixed Time — The traffic signals on an arterial are controlled locally through a time clock system. In general, the progression of a through band (the amount of green time available along an arterial at a given speed) along the arterial in the peak direction is determined by past experience and is not a function of immediate traffic demand. b) Semi-actuated — The traffic signals along the arterial are designed to maximize the green time on the major route in the major direction. Timing and through band are based upon historical records. Use of green time on the minor leg dependent upon real-time demand and maximized based upon total intersection delay. c) Interconnection — A traffic signal system in which data collected at individual signals is shared with a central processor or controller. Adjustments in traffic signal control can be made based upon incoming data as opposed to historical data. d) Optimization — The process in which a traffic signal or system is modified to maximize the amount of vehicles passing through the intersection for all approaches or on the major road in the peak direction. e) Real-time Adaptive Control — An advanced traffic control system that incorporates current technologies in communications, data analysis, and traffic monitoring to provide real-time traffic control of arterials, corridors or roadway networks. Transportation Comprehensive Plan — Assists the City in making correct transportation-related decisions today by anticipating the character, magnitude and timing of future transportation demand. City of Edina Transportation Policy A-8 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) — Programs and methods to reduce •effective demand. In the broadest sense, any activity or facility that reduces vehicle trips would fall within this classification. The highest priority in the region is given to reducing single-occupant vehicle trips in the peak periods. Techniques that might be utilized are carpooling, vanpooling, transit, alternative work hours, transportation management organizations, and land development or ordinances that discourage vehicle trips and encourage walk, bike, rideshare and transit trips. Transportation Policy Plan - This document is one chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide, as provided for in Minnesota Stat. 473, Sections 145 and 146. Section 145 states: "The Metropolitan Council shall prepare and adopt.. .a comprehensive development guide for the metropolitan area." Vehicle Trip — A one-way journey made by an auto, truck or bus to convey people or goods. Volume-to-capacity Ratio (v/c) — The hourly number of vehicles expected to use a roadway in the busiest hour, divided by the number of moving vehicles the roadway can safely accommodate in an hour. Warning Signs — A sign that gives notice to road users of a situation that might not be readily apparent. City of Edina Transportation Policy A-9 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 MEMORANDUM CITY OF EDINA DATE: January 24, 2005 TO: Edina Transportation Commission FROM: 4/Steven Lillehaug, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: 2003 Local Traffic Task Force Action Plan Update The 2002-2003 Local Traffic Task Force identified six issue areas in Edina relating to the operation of the local street system. They recommended forming a committee (Transportation Commission) that could apply the framework presented in the report to analyze and develop recommendations for the identified issue areas. They also recommended that the committee incorporate community standards (e.g. Transportation Commission Policy) to apply typical traffic calming measures within these areas. As you are well aware, the Transportation Commission Policy includes a framework for traffic calming measures in Edina and has been recommended by the Commission for consideration by the City Council. The City Council has received the final draft of the policy and has scheduled a Public Hearing for March 1, 2005. The Local Traffic Task Force issue areas were briefly presented to you at the November 18, 2004 Commission meeting. Analyzing and developing recommendations for the six identified issue areas remains to be completed. Please refer to your copy of the report for the six identified issue areas, issues, suggested causes and recommendations. The following identifies current initiatives and staff's recommendations for action to further address the six issue areas: 1. Northeast Edina Area — As indicated in the Local Traffic Task Force Findings and Recommendations, traffic issues in this area stem from the design and operation of the I overall street system including congestion on Highway 100, congestion along France Avenue, congestion in the 50th and France area, congestion in the France and 44th area, lack of a north-south collector north of West 50th Street between France Avenue and Highway 100, and redevelopment along Excelsior Boulevard in St. Louis Park. A Highway 100 expansion project is scheduled with a November 2010 letting as prescribed in the current Mn/DOT workplan. It is a $73M project and plans to provide 6- lanes from 36th Street to Cedar Lake Road in St. Louis Park. Mn/DOT has indicated that their position on the Highway 100 project with respect to the timing of the I-35/Highway 62 Commons project is that the Highway 100 project will not occur until the Commons project is complete. The 1-35W/Highway 62 Commons project is tentatively scheduled to start in 2006 and be completed in 2009. The County has jurisdiction over France Avenue and does not have any improvements included in their five-year Capital Improvements plan. Currently, the City is not actively January 24, 2005 Memorandum 2003 Local Traffic Task Force Action Plan Update pursuing improvements along France Avenue as identified. However, the Commission has given direction to staff to initiate discussion with the City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County regarding the 50th and France area. Staff is also currently discussing potential improvements to the signal system and intersection at Halifax Avenue and West 50th Street. 2. Northwest Edina Area — As indicated in the Local Traffic Task Force Findings and Recommendations, traffic issues in this area stem from congestion on and access to Highway 169. Specific improvements that were recommended include improving the intersections of Vernon Avenue with Artic Way and Lincoln Drive with Londonderry Road. Another area that exists with perceived traffic volume and access issues includes the Interlachen Boulevard and Blake Road intersection. Currently, the City is not actively pursuing improvements at these intersections. Other areas that exist with perceived traffic volume and speed issues include the following: • Cut-through path north of the Londonderry Road and Lincoln Drive intersection via Parkwood Road • View Lane and Schaefer Road north of Vernon Avenue Staff recommends the Commission recommend these neighborhood areas to be considered for Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans (NTMP) and to be scored and ranked under the NTMP process once the policy is approved. „ 3. Edina High School and Valley View Middle School Area — The school recently redeveloped portions of their property and redesignated on-site traffic flow. Internal improvements to the school's traffic flow have improved on-site traffic conditions; however, access to and from the site and traffic adjacent to the school continues to be an issue. -- -- Staff has discussed several initiatives to address these problems including roadway improvements (e.g. adding turn lanes on Valley View Road and a sidewalk along the south side of Valley View Road) and implementing an education program to address driver's behavior. _ -Gth-e-lareas that exist with perceived traffic volume issues include the following: • Gleason Road and McCauley Trail intersection • Gleason Road and Valley View Road intersection • Valley View Road and Antrim Road intersection 4. Edina Community Center Area — The Council approved facility use and joint powers agreements with Edina Public Schools, taking the next step forward in the construction of two new gymnasiums in the community. Under the plan, one gymnasium will be constructed on the south side of the Community Center and one on the south side of South View Middle School. Design of the gymnasiums will now begin. The process of obtaining a conditional use permit for the gymnasiums will likely begin in February. Page 2 of 4 January 24, 2005 Memorandum 2003 Local Traffic Task Force Action Plan Update Obtaining City approval for the gymnasiums includes site plan approval by the Planning Commission. A condition of this site plan approval includes performing a Traffic Study that analyzes existing and future (with regard to post-gymnasium opening) traffic conditions both internal and external to the site. The same areas are defined by the traffic study area necessitated by the construction of the new gymnasiums and the traffic study area identified in the Local Traffic Task Force Report. A private consultant (Howard R. Green Company) has been hired by the City to perform the study. The traffic study will be presented to the Transportation Commission at the regular meeting on February 24, 2005. • Another area that exists with perceived traffic volume and speed issues includes the area bounded on the west and east by Concord Avenue and Wooddale Avenue and on the north and south by Golf Terrace and Valley View Road. Staff recommends the Commission recommend this area be considered for Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans (NTMP) and to be scored and ranked under the NTMP process for a potential basket-weave application of STOP signs and/or traffic calming measures. 5. West 70th Street — Traffic levels on West 70th Street are currently over-capacity for the design of the street. Potential solutions to maintain this street as a movement corridor include significant physical improvements that may require the redevelopment of properties adjacent to the roadway. The Task Force did not address this issue in greater detail; however, interim actions include investigating improvements at the intersections of France Avenue with West 70th Street and West Shore Drive with West 70th Street, and improving the frontage road system at Highway 100 to encourage West 661h Street destined vehicles. Currently, staff has initiated data collection needed to perform a traffic study for the intersection of West Shore Drive with West 70th Street to determine if a new traffic signal system is warranted. This study is anticipated to be performed during the spring of 2005. 6. France Avenue Area (Greater Southdale Area) — Recently, Hennepin County and the City of Edina received Federal funds to conduct a land use/transportation study for the Greater Southdale Area. A consultant, Hoisington Koegler Group, was selected to perform the study. Over the past six months, the consulting team has conducted a variety of investigations about the issues that shape future land use and transportation in the Greater Southdale Area. These investigations have included the collection and analysis of data, inspection of the existing land uses and conditions, interviews with stakeholders, and solicitation of input from the public and advisory groups. The consulting team will use the information collected through this process to reach a series of findings about the Greater Southdale Area. The process of planning also includes the development of conceptual land use and transportation planning alternatives aimed at addressing the broader objectives for the project site. These findings, objectives and conceptual plans will provide the framework for the creation of plans and a vision for the future of the area. A series of workshops with the City Council, Planning Commission and Transportation Commission are scheduled to review the land use and transportation scenarios and to review the draft study report. The final report is scheduled to be completed within the Page 3 of 4 January 24, 2005 Memorandum 2003 Local Traffic Task Force Action Plan Update next several months. This report will be used to recognize the vision for the Greater Southdale Area and will identify specific strategic steps that will need to be undertaken to achieve desired results. Currently, the signals along France Avenue are maintained and operated by the Hennepin County Transportation Department. The County Transportation Department has indicated that the signals have been coordinated from 1-494 to Highway 62. The following are several specific issue areas within the six areas identified by the Task Force discussed above: O France Avenue in the northeast section of the City and the 50th and France area O Intersection of Vernon Avenue with Artic Way O Intersection of Lincoln Drive with Londonderry Road O Valley View Road (along Edina High School and Valley View Middle School) O West 70th Street (between Highway 100 and France Avenue) O Gleason Road and McCauley Trail intersection O Gleason Road and Valley View Road intersection O Valley View Road and Antrim Road intersection O Interlachen Boulevard and Blake Road intersection It is staff's opinion that these specific issue areas and recommendations for these areas as stated in the Local Traffic Task Force Findings and Recommendations are not applicable to the proposed Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan procedure. Staff recommends the Commission discuss these specific Task Force identified issue areas and provide recommendations for studies and improvements to the Council for scheduling in the Capital Improvements Program. Additionally, attached is a map showing other perceived issue areas that were identified by the Local Traffic Task Force that fall outside of the six specific areas. Staff recommends issues pertaining to traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, pedestrian safety, etc. that were generally identified within the neighborhoods (typically caused by the congestion factors at adjacent intersections and roadways) should be addressed through the application process through the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan procedure once approved by the Council. Page 4 of 4 Perceived Issues • Speed Volu me Accons Other Functional Classification •n••n• Principal Arterial - Minor Arteria R el lever • "A Minor Arteria I-Augme nter t.t"El" Minor Arterial Collector IfIEGLACrTEIBLIT3 II .N. ,Il //_Ii6 ( II I 1-r 1.ww WO. I LOom Ig , I ) st-vi Osumi 3.1•01 - vs: N.b.y ' Curzlen - , ow, , r lin? ST V1 II t ' TEIVEYITT r RD IhSTIT STP? El 911 e ern g Dept Octr.be r, 21:1:12 -•-• _ City of Edina CORRECTED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE Open-House Meeting (Public Comment) of the Edina Transportation Commission Thursday, December 9, 2004 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Richards, Marie Thorpe, Jean White, Warren Plante, Joni Kelly Bennett, Les Wanninger, Dean Dovolis MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Wayne Houle, Steve Lillehaug, Sharon Allison Chair Richards called the meeting to order and thanked the residents for attending. Commissioners and staff were introduced. Chair Richards explained that the Transportation Commissioners were appointed by the Council to address six issue areas and they developed a draft policy as a framework for dealing with the issue areas and other such areas in Edina. He said the Commission is advisory in nature and the Council will make all final decisions. Chair Richards explained that the purpose of tonight's meeting is for the residents to voice their concerns as they relate to traffic/transportation issues and the draft policy. Chair Richards said the Commission will meet again on January 6th to finalize the draft policy for Council's approval. Residents can continue to give feedback in writing until December 30th. Lillehaug gave an overview of the draft policy, including the background, purpose, vision; action plans: short and long term; sources of funding; process and schedule; criteria for screening, etc. Lillehaug said approximately 70 emails and other correspondences have been received to date. Public Comments Jennifer Bunkers, 4209 Scott Terrace • Plan Development — be inclusive as possible; disenfranchisement based on one block radius; burden shifting from one to another; • Speed at which plan is being pushed through; terms such as impacted area not defined; consistency of definition needed. 1 CORRECTED MINUTES Mary Porter, 5120 Halifax Avenue • Too much traffic; cut thru traffic is necessary to get from point A to point B; • 50th & France at Halifax — intersection is blocked though posted signs state not to block intersection; can only turn left onto France — why? Change timing of semaphores to prevent backups; • Applauded Commission for taking on the task. Ken Bolinger, 3924 12th Ave. So, Minneapolis • Travels through Edina for work; if Crosstown becomes a toll road he would use Edina's local streets; • Discrimination because he contributes to gas tax funds; • Violations are due to lack of police presence; sees police presence in Edina. J. C. Beckstrand, 4386 Wooddale Avenue, St. Louis Park • Policy would limit voices of people; • Neighborhood by neighborhood decision-making tears apart fabric of community; • Sidewalks at Country Club side of 44th & Wooddale installed only after his daughter was hit; • Crosswalk requested but was not approved. Julia Beckstrand, 4386 Wooddale Avenue, St. Louis Park • Work together to make streets safe. Laurine Ford, 3936 W. 44th Street • Good vision statement, with the exception of closing streets with one block notification area, arbitrary decision-making; • Has learned to live with busyness of her street; • Enforce the laws instead of closing streets. • Major arteries need work. Mary Rogers, 4215W. 42nd Street • Has learned to live with her busy, cut-through street; no sidewalks; • Use policy to unite the community, including Minneapolis and St. Louis Park; • Do not pit neighborhoods against each other; consider regional significance of decisions. Wendy Simpson, 4229 W. 44th Street • A policy that excludes residents' opinions will be detrimental; • St. Louis Park's residents are her neighbors and she will speak on their behalf; • Crosswalks are needed; • Do not divert traffic; opposes street closings. Molly Kapsner, 4221 Country Club Road • Spent one year on Country Club Traffic Committee, looked at what would happen if certain streets were cut off; should have looked at the region instead of neighborhood; • Concerned with the 300 ft. minimum distance; inform area within surrounding arteries; Jonathan Gross, 4208 Grimes Avenue • Concerned about the negative definition of cut thru traffic; 2 CORRECTED MINUTES • Did illustration of how he's impacted by cut thru traffic but this is necessary being a city dweller; also used map to show all the areas where traffic cannot currently travel thru due to various reasons (ponds, lakes, highways, etc.); • Concerned about limited definition of study area; • Methods listed for traffic calming actually restructure the roads; • Volume control. Tim Rudnicki, 4224 Lynn Avenue • Commended Commissioners for work done, but more is needed; • Does not harmonize existing city codes, land use, air quality, etc. • Referring to "the properties" instead of to people reflects a disconnect; • Shifting traffic creates burden for one and ease for others; • Use police to reduce speeding; • Process has been a failure because not publicized properly. Brian Fogelberg, 4632 Bruce Avenue • Good framework; good first step; • Remediation/changes is included in policy; • Neighborhoods north and south of 44th is for or against the plan; • Draft policy creates an excellent forum; • Impacted area should be looked at since many people are speaking about it. Dolores Deqe, 4012 Kipling Avenue • Objects to limited area for impacted study; • Objects to 'anyone requesting a study'; how many studies will be done; • Reduce traffic at 50th & France by opening Bridge Avenue • More education, polite drivers and enforcements; • Lack of notice of public comment. Mary Carte, 4208 Branson Street • Policy has put into writing what is general practice already; • Look at other areas in the city; do not allow a neighborhood to hijack the process. Diana Cooper, 4005 Natchez Avenue • Greatest concern is 50t1 & Wooddale: not safe for children biking, drivers goes through the red and yellow light every day even with police in the area; • 42nd and 44th are very busy and should be looked at closely; • Lives on a high traffic street, many school buses; • Concerned that driving her children to activities or school is seen as cut thru traffic; • Country Club is getting surveyed while Morningside is not. Hosmer Brown, 7104 West Shore Drive • Do not stop the residents from commenting because they may have some good ideas; • Need to move people quickly and safely "traffic calming may not be the issue", look at other options such as mass transit; • Some areas already intense with traffic so try to limit land use that would exacerbate the problem such as building high rises. • Appreciate what the Commission is doing. 3 CORRECTED MINUTES Brady Halverson, 4211 W. 44th Street • Good start; • Traffic volume vs. velocity; calming is needed; strike argument against volume and residents will buy-in; • People are always going to cut thru; Country Club area is appealing because there are several ways to get thru. • Moving volume from one neighborhood to the next is the major issue; • More streets closed, worse congestion on arterials. Penelope, 5000 Summit Avenue • Keep in mind Interlachen and 50th; a left turn signal onto eastbound 50th would be helpful; • Cut thru traffic increasing on Interlachen as drivers tries to avoid Hwy. 100 when going to Hopkins. Allen Beers, 6045 Wooddale Avenue • Traffic getting worse and worse; • Lots of speeding and police is never around; • Drivers failing to stop at stop sign at Wooddale and Valley View; • New sidewalk made a difference, but still speeding. Robb Webb, 4516 Drexel Avenue • Likes that the policy puts neighborhoods as focus; • Everyone wants to give input but traffic is mathematical; requires a traffic engineer to figure out how to get traffic back on the arterials; • Create threshold that defines a problem objectively. What is an appropriate amount of volume? Need to collect and analyze data to state objectively that there is a problem; need to determine an appropriate amount of volume on street; • Concept of living in the city near other cities so must deal with traffic; • Concerned about voting instead of analyzing traffic data; Bright Dornblaser, 4630 Drexel Avenue • Very clear and necessary for Edina to work on this issue; • Put emphasis on collectors streets first instead of neighborhoods streets; • Emphasis on calming devices vs. volume; would be less concerned about volume if not for speed; • Supports what has been done thus far. Art Heim, Highland Neighborhood • Moving traffic on 50th going east is a big concern, maybe no left turn at Halifax; • Minneapolis uses directional arrows to discourage turning on certain streets; • Roundabouts are accident prone; • Traffic problems are not going away, getting worse; • Traffic not worse in Country Club than in other neighborhoods; • Favors speed bumps. David Farmer, 4612 Casco Avenue • Created a toolbox to solve traffic issues — good first step; • Quantifiable traffic numbers identifies problems such as speeding; • Lacking in the definition of impacted area; 4 CORRECTED MINUTES • Inconvenienced — try to quantify what this will mean; • Great framework overall; • Significant diversion not defined. Mark Johnson, 5007 Arden Avenue • Disappointed because he found out about meeting on the local news; • Continue to hold forums, but not in the media. Roberta Castellano, 4854 France Avenue • France Avenue is a bottleneck at certain times of the days; • Drivers use alternative routes because of bottleneck; • Problem will continue as population increases; • All drivers here tonight; we are someone else's perceived nuisance; • All seems to tolerate amount of traffic but speeding seems to be an issue; • Impacted area — be more inclusive. Lee Marks, 4602 Arden Avenue • Streets were designed 100 years ago and are no longer adequate; • Changes will not happen overnight; • Disappointed in residents' behavior in meetings such as Morningside and Country Club pitting against each other; references made to process being a failure, us vs. them, an eye for an eye attitude; • Policy takes the emotion out of the process; it is fact based; includes all the options; working within confines of available tools; • Appears to be objective, takes out subjectivity. Tom Steel, 5057 Ewing, Minneapolis • Not understanding or ignoring traffic signs is a law enforcement issue; increasing fines will get their attention; • People living closest to impacted area should have more say than someone living say a mile away; • Language of property vs. people: the changes stays with the property long after the people are gone; • Notification of meeting: medium used seems to be quite effective based on attendance tonight. Chris O'Brien, 4627 Drexel Avenue • Have friends in many areas that are having problems; • Freeways are getting worse; 2 lane highways causes people to cut thru local streets to avoid congestion; • Speed/volume are both problems, not separate. Helen Burke, 4246 Grimes Avenue • Read letter on behalf of her daughter, Julia Silvis • Definition of cut thru traffic is too flimsy and subjective; improve efficiency of legitimate traffic; • Include as many opportunities for public disclosure and debate; • Serve the needs of the entire city rather than those of one (vocal) neighborhood. CORRECTED MINUTES Chair Richards thanked the residents for participating and told them that their comments will be taken into consideration. He assured them that citizens' input is very important, however, this does not mean that their input will always be adhered to. He said it is obvious they need to revisit the definition of impacted area and he emphasized that the Commission is not proposing street closures — this is listed as one of the options available. Residents were reminded to continue to submit written comments until December 30th. The next Transportation Commission meeting is scheduled for January 6th. Regular meetings are held the 4th Thursday of each month, 6:00-8:00 p.m. in the Community Room and are open to the public. Meeting adjourned. 6 MINUTES OF THE Special Meeting Edina Transportation Commission Thursday, January 6, 2005 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Community Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Richards, Marie Thorpe, Jean White, Warren Plante, Joni Kelly Bennett, Les Wanninger, Dean Dovolis MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Wayne Houle, Steve Lillehaug, Sharon Allison I. Chair Richards called the meeting to order. IL New Business a. 1-494 Corridor Commission Information Plante reported that he attended the December meeting of the 1-494 Commission. He said Representative Ron Erhardt, chair of the Transportation Committee, was also present as an invited guest. Plante said Erhardt reported that transportation is not the priority for the legislatures; K-12 funding is. He reported that the Governor is recommending a $4.5 billion bonding package plus increases in certain fees because he is not in favor of new taxes. Erhardt said he believes there would be enough votes to get a 10 cents gas tax increase. He also noted that consensus is needed amongst the various groups that are developing individual transportation plans to bring the best ideas forward to the legislatures and he's optimistic that a package could pass. Richards asked that this be placed on the agenda as an action item for further discussion. He also asked that staff contact Erhardt for information regarding increasing the gas tax, so that the Commissioners can discuss how they can help the process. Plante suggested having a Commissioner attend these meetings and recommended asking the Council to draft a proposal to the legislatures and federal representatives implementing the new tax law. Wanninger volunteered to attend the next meeting, which is scheduled for January 12th. III. Old Business a. Public Comments Received to Date Public comments received to date were distributed to the Commissioners prior to this meeting, with the exception of one letter that was sent to White (staff to copy and distribute). Richards said the two primary focuses of the comments are on the benefited area and participation. Richards said there appears to be a misunderstanding or miscommunication in the community that the Commission is working on substantiative issues based on comments received. 1 Richards would like the record to reflect that there has not been any proposal made or talked about by the Commission. Instead, their focus has been on creating a policy that would become a road map to handle substantiative issues. Dovolis expressed similar sentiments. Bennett said this could have been avoided had the Commissioners decided to commence differently and past history in the Country Club Neighborhood has helped to set the current tempo. Thorpe said it is sad that this is being made into a Country Club Neighborhood issue and distracting from what the policy is about. Wanninger said traffic and traffic related problems are real and must be dealt with and neighborhoods fighting against each other where this is concerned is "plain stupid." He said each Commissioner has the responsibility to communicate accurate information and he is not sure that this has always been the case. • Lillehaug announced the following upcoming meetings: • Regular Transportation Commission Meeting — Thursday, Jan. 20th, 7 to 9 p.m. (Please note this date was an error — the meeting will be held at the regular date and time on Thursday, Jan. 27th, 6 to 8 p.m.) • Greater Southdale Study Joint Workshop - Saturday, Jan. 29th, 8 to Noon Lillehaug said of the 170-plus public comments received, including those from the open house, the majority came from the northeast area and a scant amount from outside the City limits (Minneapolis and St. Louis Park). b. Draft Policy Benefited and Impacted Areas — Alternate A and Alternate B Lillehaug said he created two alternate plans for the benefited and impacted areas because many people seem to be dissatisfied with them based on comments received. Alternate A includes the petition-to-study, survey-to-study and the survey for final implementation. In the petition-to-study phase only those properties within the benefited area would be notified because those are the properties that will be assessed. A minimum of 25% of surveys should be returned with a majority agreeing to the issues. All costs would be assessed to the properties including costs associated with performing the feasibility study. The survey-to-test would be the impacted area and notification would be given to all residents within the impacted area. After the test period, residents would be surveyed to see if they would like to proceed with permanent implementation. Alternate B includes notifying everyone within the benefited (assessed) and impacted areas during the petition-to-study. The impacted area would be within 500 feet of the benefited area (keeping in mind that the 500 feet can be changed as needed). The survey-to-test stays the same as well as the survey for permanent implementation. What is listed in the October 2004 draft policy is very similar to Alternate A, except Alternate A requires that a certain percentage of surveys be returned in order to proceed. Bennett noted that Minneapolis uses a higher percentage for the basis of support, while Thorpe cited an example that required a lower percentage. Lillehaug said he is familiar with the support requirements from various cities and the support level that is being recommended was arrived at based on the consensus of the Commissioners. Lillehaug said while these are defined the Commission has the authority to change them as needed. Where assessment is concerned, Lillehaug said all costs will be assessed to the property owners, including traffic studies, if the project is approved. Therefore, property owners should 2 be made aware of this. Lillehaug said Bloomington only assess those property owners who are in favor of the project. c. Draft Policy — Review and Consideration for Recommendation to the City Council Dovolis motioned that staff add language specifying that all costs, including studies done, will be assessed to the benefited area if project is approved. Seconded by White. Ayes: 7 Motion carried. Dovolis motioned that in order for a project to move forward 30% of residents must respond from the benefited area with 65% in favor of the project. If this is not met, a recommendation would be made to Council to not proceed further. Seconded by Plante. Ayes: 4 Nays: 3 Motion carried. Reword the policy such that the Benefited Area and Impacted Area shall be defined by the Commission to include the benefited area guidelines as a minimum. Ayes: 6 Nays: 1 Motion carried. Bennett motioned to have all references to traffic calming for volume control very tightly defined or, at a minimum, a defined definition of impacted area or notice area for a proposal to divert traffic to correspond with the one in the Minneapolis policy. Motion failed for a lack of support. In reference to a citizen's letter regarding clarity of language in the policy, Bennett asked what is the reason for including the Edina Transportation Plan in this policy. Bennett does not believe it should be combined into this current document because it confuses the public. The consensus is to keep the plan as is. Thorpe motioned to include the approximate number of vehicles that typically travels on local streets. The suggested number in the City's Comprehensive Plan is 1,000. Seconded by Dovolis. Ayes: 4 Nays: 3 Motion carried. Residents Comments Tim Frederick, 4188 W. 44th Street. Mr. Frederick said as he understood it, this policy was to engage the public and provide information to the elected officials in a way that was better than before and based on good science. He believes there are a lot good things that staff has not included and the Commissioners have been prohibited to make decisions based on what was provided. Kristi Anderson, 4140 W. 44th Street. Ms. Anderson stated that she agreed with Mr. Frederick. She asked Lillehaug how many comments were received and favorability. Lillehaug stated approximately 170 comments were received but he did not break them down according to those for or against the policy. Bennett said of the approximately 170 received 150 were Edina 3 residents, 9 St. Louis Park and 2 Minneapolis; and those opposing the draft far exceeded those supporting it. Jonathan Gross, 4208 Grimes Avenue. Mr. Gross stated that he submitted a letter and his concerns were the changes in definitions in the Edina Plan and the draft policy, in particular cut-through traffic. This is listed in the draft policy as "non local cut-through traffic," compared to the Federal Highway's definition of "non citizens." Another concern is the altering of priorities by linking speed control and volume. Mr. Gross said the introduction of the policy framework on page 2 is very good but after that the focus seemed to shift to traffic calming. Keith Wolf, 4600 Wooddale Avenue. Mr. Wolf said he's addressing the Commission as a resident of Edina, not of a specific neighborhood. He went on to say that he believes the policy provides a fact base from which decisions can be made and minimizes subjectivity. He said he is supportive of all the neighborhoods and if they work together it can be a win-win situation and if there is a win-lose, then all lose. He said he is an advocate for addressing traffic on 44th Street, but he should not be involved in the decision-making process. His primary concern is the impact outsiders are having on the various neighborhoods. Mr. Wolf stated further that he was able to access the draft policy on the City's website as early as Nov. 3rd. Dovolis motioned to adopt the policy and forward it to the Council for consideration. Seconded by White. Ayes: 6 Nay: 1 Motion carried. IV. Approval of Minutes a. November 18, 2004 b. December 9, 2004 Plante motioned to approve both minutes with corrections to the December minutes as stated by Bennett. Seconded by Dovolis. Ayes: 6 Nay: 1 Motion carried. Meeting adjourned. The next regular scheduled meeting will be January 27th, 6:00-8:00 p.m. in the Community Room. 4 Page 1 of 1 Steve Lillehaug From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 2:12 PM To: Dean Dovolis (E-mail); Fred Richards (E-mail); Jean White (E-mail); Joni Bennet (E-mail); Les Wanninger (E-mail); Marie Thorpe (E-mail); Sharon Allison; Steve Lillehaug; Wayne Houle Subject: FW: Meeting in St. Louis Park 2/3/05 MNDOT Officials to Present 2020 Draft Transportation Plan This is your chance to have a say in what happens to the metro area's roads and bridges through 2020. MNDOT officials are looking for input from the residents and business community regarding the 2020 draft transportation plan. Highway 100 is delayed from 2010 to 2014, and Highway 610 is underfunded. Register today and make your voice heard in the state's transportation planning. Thursday, February 3 7:30 - 9:00 a.m. Wolfe Lake Professional Center 5000 W. 36th Street, St. Louis Park, 55416 Complimentary admission Please contact Steve Lillehaug for further information and/or if you plan to attend. Thanks. Steve Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer/Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952-826-0445 slillehaug@ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424-1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952-826-0389 1/27/2005 Edina Transportation Commission Schedule 1/27/2005 (January 27, 2005) Date Time Meeting Meeting Items Greater Southdale Study (Council, Planning Commission, Transportation Commission, City Staff) January 29, 2005 8-noon Joint Workshop February 3, 2005 7:30-9:00 a.m. Louis Park Mn/DOT Meeting in St. Mn/DOT Officials to present Present 2020 Draft Transportation PaIn (RE: Highway 100 delayed from 2010 to 2014). Invitation from the City of St. Louis Park to the Edina Transportation Commission February 10, 2005 7-9 p.m. 6-8 p.m. Public Input Workshop Regular Meeting Greater Southdale Study 2005 NTMP Scoring and Ranking February 24, 2005 March 1, 2005 7 p.m. Meeting City Council Regular Public Hearing for the Final DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy ???March - April Joint Meeting Possible meeting with Richfield Transportation Commission to discuss planning efforts on TH 62, Greater Southdale, 1-494, etc. March 24,2005 6-8 p.m. Regular Meeting to be determined File:1-27-05_TC Schedule.xls Tab:1-27-05 January 27, 2005 City of Edina Senator Geoff Michel 133 State Office Building 100 Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 Subject: Senate File No. 366 Dear Senator Michel: On behalf of the City of Edina, the Edina Transportation Commission appreciates your support on Senate File No. 366 regarding the proposed bill authorizing cities to impose street utility fees. As you may well know, many of the aging streets in Edina have reached or exceeded their life expectancy and continue to deteriorate without adequate maintenance. These streets need to be reconstructed to support the movement of people and goods and to sustain safe, livable neighborhoods. Edina's existing funding mechanisms, such as Municipal State Aid (MSA), taxes and special assessments, have limited applications leaving the City under equipped to address the growing needs to maintain the lifecycle costs of the roadways. A street utility is a fair, cost-effective and efficient way to protect our investment in the vital infrastructure. The street utility is a pay-as-you-go tool that can significantly reduce unwieldy special assessments. The street utility fee as introduced under Senate File No. 366 provides an excellent method of paying for a portion of street reconstruction costs on a more equitable basis. We appreciate your support of this legislation. Sincerely, Edina Transportation Commission cc: Mayor and Council City Hall 952-927-8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX 952-826-0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424-1394 www.cityofeclina.com TTY 952-826-0379 January 27, 2005 City of Edina Representative Neil Peterson Room 527 State Office Building 100 Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 Subject: House File No. 313 Dear Representative Peterson: Dear Representative Erhardt: On behalf of the City of Edina, the Edina Transportation Commission appreciates your support on House File No. 313 regarding the proposed bill authorizing cities to impose street utility fees. As you may well know, many of the aging streets in Edina have reached or exceeded their life expectancy and continue to deteriorate without adequate maintenance. These streets need to be reconstructed to support the movement of people and goods and to sustain safe, livable neighborhoods. Edina's existing funding mechanisms, such as Municipal State Aid (MSA), taxes and special assessments, have limited applications leaving the City under equipped to address the growing needs to maintain the lifecycle costs of the roadways. A street utility is a fair, cost-effective and efficient way to protect our investment in the vital infrastructure. The street utility is a pay-as-you-go tool that can significantly reduce unwieldy special assessments. The street utility fee as introduced under House File No. 313 provides an excellent method of paying for a portion of street reconstruction costs on a more equitable basis. We appreciate your support of this legislation. Sincerely, Edina Transportation Commission cc: Mayor and Council City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424-1394 www.cityofeclina.com 952-927-8861 FAX 952-826-0390 TTY 952-826-0379