HomeMy WebLinkAboutN [7] City Engineer, APO ReportSarah Bialke
From: Judy Weyrens
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 3:11 PM
To: Sarah Bialke
Subject: FW: January 2009 APO TAC Meeting Summary
Attachments: NORTHSTAR INFO_001.pdf; Nstar update winter 2008.pdf; MUN STREET IMP DIST_
001.pdf; pic15724.jpg; HSIP APPLICATION_001.pdf; SCENARIO B_001.pdf; 1-08-09
Technical Advisory Committee.pdf
Council packet
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Sabart [mailto:rsabart@sehinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 4:43 PM
To: Judy Weyrens
Subject: January 2009 APO TAC Meeting Summary
Judy,
Below is a summary of the APO TAC meeting held this morning:
1) Staff from the Northstar Corridor and Tom Cruikshank (MetroBus) made a presentation on the
status of the Northstar Commuter Rail project from the Twin Cities to Big Lake.
Construction is on track (no pun
intended) with service to begin operation in late 2009. The presentation included several
photos of the rail and station construction. Tom C. presented on MetroBus' role in the
proposed commuter bus link service, "Northstar Link," between St. Cloud and Big Lake.
MetroBus is pursuing/studying the development of three park and ride sites (CSAH 2 at St.
Joseph Twp, Lincoln Avenue/TH 10 in St. Cloud, and I-94/Opportunity Drive in St.
Cloud). I mentioned to Mitch
Anderson and Tom C. the township's comments from last night on desiring an update regarding
the development of park and ride off CSAH 2. Please see attached info
(see attached file: NORTHSTAR INFO_001.pdf)(See attached file: Nstar update winter 2008.pdf)
2) APO staff distributed the attached information relative to proposed legislation enabling
cities to establish a municipal street improvement district to collect fees from property
owners within a district to fund municipal street maintenance, construction, reconstruction,
and facility upgrades.
(See attached file: MUN STREET IMP DIST_001.pdf)
This legislation would present another "tool" for project financing and an alternative to
special assessments.
3) Staff distributed information and an application for Mn/DOT's solicitation for FY 2010-
2012 for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural Roads Program
(HRRRP) funds. The program focuses on stand-alone safety improvements to intersections or
sections of roadway. It targets funds on 70q "proactive" projects and 30% "reactive"
projects,
and those projects reducing fatal and/or incapacitating accidents. A map overlay by APO staff
illustrated one such crash on CR 75 within the last 3 years. I was planning to review the
info with our traffic professionals to see if there may be opportunities for St.
Joseph.
(Embedded image moved to file: pic15724.jpg)
(See attached file: HSIP APPLICATION_001.pdf)
4) Lastly, APO staff presented preliminary funding scenario information for the 2035
Transportation Plan. The initial three scenarios contemplated various funding
distributions: Scenario A: 95% Expansion Projects/5% Other Types; Scenario B: 75%
Expansion/25% Other; and Scenario C: 50% Expansion/50% Other.
You may recall last year due to a change in federal legislation, St.
Joseph's North Corridor (CR 133 to
Westwood Parkway) fell out of the financially "constrained" project list to an "illustrative"
project list. The "illustrative" designation meant that the project would not be eligible
for ATP federal program dollars and could only compete for federal earmark dollars.
Given the preliminary scenarios above and the potential change in allocation from expansion
to other type projects (preservation, trails, etc) it's possible the North Corridor project
could be knocked out of federal dollar eligibility (ATP $'s and earmark $'s) altogether. See
attached example:
(See attached file: SCENARIO B_001.pdf)
Sincerely,
Randy Sabart, PE ~ Principal
Project Manager
SEH
1200 25th Avenue South
St. Cloud, MN 56302-1717
320.229.4348
rsabart@sehinc.com
www.sehinc.com
STJOE, D89
----- Forwarded by Randy Sabart/seh on 01/08/2009 02:02 PM -----
"Kirby Becker"
<becker@stcloudap
o.org> To
<Jeremy.Mathiasen@bonestroo.com>,
12/18/2008 12:12 "Kirk Abraham"
PM <kabraham@ci.sauk-rapids.mn.us>,
"Howieson, Kelvin"
<kelvin.howieson@dot.state.mn.us>,
"Steve Gaetz"
<Stephen.gaetz@ci.stcloud.mn.us>,
"Matt Glaesman"
<Matt.Glaesman@ci.stcloud.mn.us>,
"Randy Sabart"
<rsabart@sehinc.com>, "Anderson,
Mitch"
<mitch.anderson@co.stearns.mn.us>,
"Cruikshank, Tom"
<tcruikshank@stcloudmtc.com>,
"Foss, Steve"
2
<sfoss@ci.stcloud.mn.us>,
"Gartland, Patti"
<patti@sartellmn.com>, "Olson,
Ross"
<rolson@ci.sauk-rapids.mn.us>,
"Schluenz, Bill"
<wschluenz@waitepark.org>, "Teich,
Jodi"
<jodi.teich@co.stearns.mn.us>,
"Voss, Steve"
<steve.voss@dot.state.mn.us>,
"Weyrens, Judy"
<jweyrens@cityofstjoseph.com>,
"Wotzka, Terry"
<twotzka@sehinc.com>, "Lewis,
Rhonda"
<rhonda.lewis@co.sherburne.mn.us>,
"Bob Kozel"
<bkozel@co.benton.mn.us>, "Mary
Safgren"
<mary.safgren@dot.state.mn.us>,
"Susan Siemers"
<susan.siemers@dot.state.mn.us>,
<sjohnson@waitepark.org>,
<kminer@wsbeng.com>,
<rweber@rockvillecity.org>, "Anita
Rasmussen" <anita@sartellmn.com>,
<bmccabe@staugustamn.com>, "Wocken,
Chuck"
<chuck.wocken@co.stearns.mn.us>
cc
"Eyoh, Innocent"
<Innocent.Eyoh@state.mn.us>, "Cindy
Carlsson"
<Cindy.Carlsson@dot.state.mn.us>,
"Mitchell, Tim"
<Tim.Mitchell@fhwa.dot.gov>, "Susan
Moe" <susan.moe@fhwa.dot.gov>,
"Scott Mareck"
<mareck@stcloudapo.org>
Subject
January 2009 APO TAC Agenda
Good Afternoon TAC,
Please find attached the January 2009 APO TAC agenda. Agenda packets will be mailed sometime
the last week of December. I wanted to get this agenda to you early because there some
exciting items we'll be discussing in 7anuary.
3
Tam Cruikshank, Planning & Marketing Director for St. Cloud Metro Bus & 7i11 Brown, Public
Relations Specialist for Northstar will be presenting on Northstar Phase II. After the
presentation we'll be reviewing the recently released Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) solicitation packet and brainstorming on potential project submittals. And last,
staff is working on putting together three financially constrained project scenarios for
funding expansion projects (i.e. 95%, 75% & 5e%) to discuss.
Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays!
Kirby
Kirby Becker
St. Cloud Area Planning Organization
1040 County Road 4
St. Cloud, MN 56303-0643
Phone: 320-252-7568
Fax: 320-252-6557(See attached file: 1-08-09 Technical Advisory
Committee.pdf)
4
ST. CLOUD AREA PLANNING ORGANIZATION
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TACj
Thursday, January 8, 2009
9:00 a.m. -12:00 p.m.
Mn/DOT District 3 Offices
Lewis South Room
3725 12 Street North
St. Cloud
AGENDA
1. Consideration of TAC Minutes from December 4, 2008 (Attachment A).
Requested Action: Approval.
2. Presentation & Update on Northstar Phase II Commuter Bus.
Requested Action: Information/Discussion.
3. Municipal Street Improvement District Authority (Attachment B)
Requested Action: Information/Discussion.
4. FY 2009110 & FY 2011/12 Highway Safety Improvement Program Solicitation (Attachment C).
Requested Action: Information/Discussion.
5. Continued Discussion of 2035 Roadway Plan Financially Constrained Project Scenarios: 95%,
75% & 50% funding for expansion (Attachment D).
Requested Action: Information/Discussion.
6. Other Business.
7. Adjournment.
St. Cloud Area Planning Organization (32D) 252-7568 admin an tcloudago.org
~\
~NORTI-JSTAR
C O R R I D O R
Ride the bus in 2009 and trains in the future!
Northstar Extension Committee Puts Emphasis on Commuter Coach Service in 2009
A new, stress-free, easy way to commute to and from the St. Cloud area is coming. The Northstar Corridor
Development Authority Extension Committee is working with public officials and business leaders to explore
using comfortable commuter coaches to connect the St. Cloud area with Northstar Commuter Rail service
in Big Lake.
Sherburne County, Stearns County and St. Cloud Metro Bus are leading the committee's work to reach the
following goals:
~~
. ~ ~~
~ . t .J-/~.-..~
:Y-~
~, _" i
• i , ~ a 1j i
\YI.I~ ' 3i ~~I
~~ ;
. o_.~ ~ `. ..,,. ~ ~
_ i
~:.
~ ~' RM ~
~< I
,~„ '1_
r,
~ ~, t~ ~_ ,. ,,, .~ ~.. ~ 1
.
11. ~ i
__ ~_ y ;~
o i ~ ~'
~~ ~ StnNa~ Lwatlo„t ~`r i'TSn aN~~n 1 ~rS„ -' a
'f11iM."{4wl.lAway 1 ~ L a
ion
"~ '4..,x_.1 ~_, ~ r
- Have commuter coach service
ready to roll when trains begin
operation, anticipated in Nov. 2009.
- Schedule buses to meet all five
week day trains headed to Minneapolis
and one train headed to Big Lake.
- Prepare a Hwy 10 park and ride site
in east St. Cloud and explore additional
sites in the I-94 corridor.
- pevelop at least one coach route
with stops at SCSU and downtown St.
Cloud.
- Monitor coach ridership and funding
opportunities to determine when to
pursue expanding train service to the
St. Clcud area.
St. Cloud Area Survey Shows
Support for Northstar & Expansion
- 133% say building Northstar is a
"good" or "very good" idea.
- 72% of respondents say they support state and county governments funding an extension of Northstar
Commuter Rail service to St. Cloud.
- If a bus service was implemented from St. Cloud to Big Lake, potential riders would increase to 47%
(from 37%) with 17% indicating they would "very likely" use Northstar.
Some interesting Phase 2 area statistics....
- 85% of Phase 2 area residents travel outside their home at least four times each week. 52% of
households have two or more persons commuting to work each week. The survey found somewhat
higher potential Northstar ridership among persons 35-54 years old, households with children, students,
and persons with higher education and higher incomes. Survey conducted Dec. 2007.
Check out mn-GetOnBoard.com for information on schedules, tips for riding the line in 2009 and more.
Northstar Corridor Development Authority
2100 3rd Avenue, Anoka, Minnesota 55303-2265 (763) 323-5729 1 888~7A-6782 Pax: (763)323-5662
^
i
vVFI~_' --~ t
~ ~/'1 Awn
1 tV~~~MR
COMMU7fR RAIL
~., .. ,rn?, ~
Ct•m kap~d:. Rivord:'• Swt%a- •
Ua.r>,F. .
F]i'VrA]Plrn }: ~"I.fl~~ n~ ; F:d i ir~_ $CA~:-` f(. rd
Mfew•pMa ... ..
1W.wP~i• Fk7 Un ~u,. ,., .
!:.
~.. .....
• Surface parking lot with space for
518 vehicles
• Bicycle lockers
• Potential connecting bus service
Station Platform
• Covered and enclosed waiting areas
with on-demand heating system
• Northstar schedules and transit
connecting information
• Touch your Metro Transit Go-To card
to an automated reader to pay fare
instantly (add value to card online or
at the station) or
• Purchase your fare at a ticket vending
machine
• Fully ADA compliant
The Northstar Corridor is one of the fastest growing
transportation corridors in the state. Northstar
Commuter Rail will offer a fast, reliable and safe
alternative to sitting in traffic. Starting in late 20Dg,
Northstar will serve commuters via stations at Big
Lake, Elk River, Anoka, Coon Rapids-Riverdale and
downtown Minneapolis, adjacent to the new Twins'
ballpark -and with connections to the Hiawatha
Light Rail Line and buses.
The Northstar Sration at Big Lake {the final northbound station)
is conveniently located near Highway 10 along County Road
43 (see reverse). The Vehicle Maintenance FacilJty, which will
maintain Northstar trains, is also located here.
Service to downtown Mfnneapotfs:
About 41 minutes
Nearbv amenities:
Shopping, restaurants and service facilriies.
For more information: www,biglakemn.orgor
www.btglakecham ber. com
Erin^.;r:±• 5_hN,~e, tYc'<Lday, ei91a6~e tc ficvmtown AGnn••peAF
upavLL tgrt5 rk Rivn~ bUB 638 ):QE J.38 &{)6 Si13
:m,r+ (eY(: fella R.9p; 7aF 88Q a']3
fn-_>~AnFrls~Rrxrdbie t1'1 6.5r J'?t ~~51 6:2t 516
Safety
E':~n21!ti ~chec ~~e. VircFd=!F. DowMami A•.imeapaliF tc Big tiM
• Security cameras on platforms
• Clearly-marked crossings and drop-off p(..AWFFaaES :;,.~.=.M'r "` sv „= =`~ 4,, "=-
area ..~,~P.:,~ts _ ~ ~u.,~ ~,.:,., : •. d ro ado ~ , 1,
:
.. _,, ,
• Parking and station facilities patrolled ~-~,.,. a~a d~z ;.> t t:.
by local and Metro Transit police e~t~. ?a~ dsz sdz ssz a•oz asz
• Conductor on each train
~__T_.___.__.__.._.~_._.~_ Northsfar (rains will also offer three round trips each weekend
day and special event service.
• www.mn-GetOnBoard.com 763.323.5813 ,«~
/~.
''~r~1J ~lL ~~ c r 3 ~J 7~~., [ 1/[)111'
~ ( ll ~ 1~r ~,~i~~7]
Winter 2008
-r h[; fGCDA prcvidc< regular cpdstes to supporters on nn~a information about the Nrnihsiai Comm-ter Rail project For more in(oima0on, go io www.mn-Getenaoani.com.
Thanks to the collaboration and commitment from the City of Fridley,
Anoka County, Northstar Corridor Development Authority, Counties
Transit Improvement Board (CTIB) and Northstar Commuter Rail
supporters, the Fridley station is planned to he ready for commuters
on day one of Northstar service.
The Northstar Project learned in October that it can complete
construction of the Fridley station thanks to the CTIB's first round of
transportation grants. The $9.9 million grant will be combined with
funds already invested by the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority
and the City of Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority and
will allow the station to be fully operational when Northstar service
begins in late 2009.
Funding for the Fridley station was made possible from the new ~'/a-percent metro sales tax passed this year by the
Minnesota Legislature and participating metro counties. Northstar Commuter Rail was among the first recipients of this
funding because of the station's positive impact on the region's transit system.
Some preliminary construction, including a pedestrian tunnel under the BNSF Railway train tracks, was completed earlier
this year in anticipation that additional funding would be secured. An official groundbreaking for the Fridley station is
expected to occur next spring.
First Northstar Locomotive
Arrives in Big Lake
~zf,fySSS J.`sin.,
tW~>~~~
The first of Northstar's Five locomotives arrived in Big
Lake this fall - a visible reminder that the anticipated
start up of Northstar service is approaching fast. The
remaining locomotives are expected within the coming
weeks. They are being manufactured by Motive Power,
Inc. in Boise, Idaho.
Residents along the corridor will begin to see testing of
Northstar trains once passenger cars arrive next spring.
Sevt:nteen passenger vehicles are on order from
Bombardier,
While major construction activities
COnS1PIFGtiD6 have been significantly reduced or
tlpLr2tt:5 i j~~~`,. stopped for the winter, Northstar
):1 ~ facilities and stations have reached
)•~ significant milestones.
i The Vehicle Maintenance Facility in Big Lake is
complete and ready for use by Northstar.
i Significant progress has been made with the Big
Lake, Elk River and Coon Rapids-Riverdale
station platforms and shelters, with major
concrete and structural work completed.
r` Ai the Coon Rapids-Riverdale station, crews
have finished steel work on the pedestrian
overpass.
r Park-and-ride lots have been expanded at the
EIk River and Coon Rapids-Riverdale stations.
Station shelters have been erected and
park-and-ride lots are nearly complete in Anoka.
r In downtown Minneapolis, station shelters have
gone up and track work to connect Northstar
with the Hiawatha tight Rail Line continues.
In the spring, work on the Fridley station will begin
and work to complete all other stations will resur~..
Northstar Corridor Development Authority j~~ q
2100 3rd Avenue, Anoka, Minnesota 55303-2265 IJ ~(~~ ~ ~ ~~((O
1-888-478-NSTAR (6782) (763) 323-5700 Fax: (763) 323-562
www.mn-GetOnBoard.com By
Northstar Gets a New Look!
With the initial phase of Northstar making steady
progress, officials are exploring an extension of
Northstar Commuter Rail Line benefits even further
- to St. Cloud. Commuter coach bus service is
being planned between St. Cloud and Big Lake to
connect with Northstar trains when service begins in
late 2009.
Northstar recently redesigned its web site
(~ ~~ ~.rn}it ci7nC>u<ici.cc~k?) and other project
materials to represent the hold new look of Northstar
and provide more detail as Minnesotans get ready to
ride the line in 2009. The new site features
information about safety, how to ride the line, what to
expect from Northstar, as well as improved
navigation tools and interactive features.
The St. Cloud commuter coach hus service is being
planned by St. Cloud Metro Bus and Sherburne and
Stearns counties in cooperation with the
Northstar Corridor Development Authority. Plans are
coming together for development of park•and-ride
sites along Highway 10 and Interstate 94,
More information about St. Cloud commuter coach
bus service will be announced in 2009.
Stay Connected with Northstar
This is the last print edition of Northstar's
Supporter Update newsletter, so we can focus
in 2009 on preparing you for Northstar service. To
receive future updates electronrcaNy, please sign
up at wrrv~~,rrir-Gett7r7;~3r~~~~rJ._r.•c:rrr.
Visitors to the site will get:
^ Tips to help plan your trtp
and connect to other
transit lines.
^ Details about buying
tickets, station and train
amenities and safety on
and around trains.
;,.. ,..
~rw
r .~~F ~; r
;''
W=». ::..
. r•~ ~,
^ Updated animations and pictures showing
construction progress and what Northstar will look
like when service begins.
^ News updates and other project developments.
Stay Away from Northstar Station Construction Zones
Although stations may appear to be nearly complete, residents need to remember that the Northstar station sites still
are live construction zones and are unsafe.
Even as construction slows during the winter months, safety is a priority for the Northstar Project. A dormant site may
look appealing, but it is important to stay clear of fenced construction zones and remember the following safety tips:
• Never assume you know when and where to expect a train. Trains travel in troth
directions on multiple BNSF train tracks. While Northstar trains will travel on specific
schedules, freight trains travel at any time along the tracks and generally will not slow down
when traveling through station areas.
^ Some signs and other signals may not be active to announce an approaching
train,
^ Environmental noise and wide-open spaces can muffle warning whistles or the
sound of trains, so it is crucial to stay alert around train tracks. In addition, BNSF
trains are not always allowed to sound their horns because of local sound ordinances.
^ Stay away from high voltage wires, power lines and track switches. While Northstar stations can appear
dormant, wires and other electrical devices may be live and switches can move at any time.
Everyone is eager for the beginning of Northstar service, but it is important to remember that Northstar stations and
train tracks are not places to explore. There will be ample opportunities to tour station sites as the beginning of service
approaches.
ATTACHMENT B
00
LEAGUE ol: CONNECTING & INNOVATING
MINNESOTA s1NCS 19.3
CITIES
Municipal Street Ymprovement District Authority
Fact Sheet - 2008
Key Provisions in the Municipal Street Improvement District Bill•
• Phis legislation would authorize cities to establish street improvement districts,
• The bill would allow cities to collect fees from property owners within a district to fund municipal
street maintenance, construction, reconstruction and facility upgrades.
• Under the proposal, the municipality would be required to adopt a street improvement plan that
identifies and estimates the costs of proposed construction, reconstruction, facility upgrades and
.maintenance for the following five years.
• Fees must he apportioned to all parcels or tracts of land located in the established street
improvement district on a uniform basis within each classification of real estate.
• The city may collect municipal street improvement fees in a district for up to twenty years.
Whv Existine Fundine Mechanisms are Inadeguate•
• Special assessments can be onerous to property owners and are difficult to implement for some
cities. Special assessments are not always useful for funding collector streets and other streets that
do noY abut private property.
• Property tax dollars are generally not dedicated and are sometimes diverted to more pressing needs
such as public safety, water quality and cost participation in state and county highway projects.
• Municipal state aid (MSA) is limited to cities over 5,000 population--143 of 854 cities in
Minnesota--and cannot be applied to more than 20% of a MSA city's Jane miles. Existing MSA is
not keeping up with needs on the MSA system.
Some Reasons to Sunnort this Le~islation•
• This is enabling legislation. No city would be required to create a municipal street improvement
district.
• The street improvement district authority legislation is modeled after Minn. Stet. 435.44, which
allows cities to establish sidewalk improvement districts.
• This authority would provide a funding mechanism that is fair, It establishes a clear relationship
between who pays fees and where projects occur, but stops short of the benefit test that sometimes
makes special assessments vulnerable to legal challenges. It also does not prohibit cities from
collecting fees from tax exempt properties within a district,
• This tool allows cities to perform maintenance and reconstruction on schedule. Timely maintenance
is essential to preserving streets and thereby protecting taxpayer investments.
• This tool would a1Iow property owners to fund expensive projects by paying relatively small fees
over time. The tool could be used to mitigate or eliminate the need for special assessments.
For more information, contact,4nne Finn, LMCAssistant Intergovernmental Relations Director,
at afnrv(~1mc.orQ ar {651)281-1263.
145 UNJVEFlS1TY AVE. WEST eHOVe (G51) 281-]2011 Fnx: (651) 28]-1299
ST. PAUL, MN 55103-2049 Too rare: (800) 925-1122 WfB: NNJ1v.rAnC.ORG
02111/?(H)S CMRIJK OS-5514
71tix Duunnrnt ran he made available
in altrrn:»iw: 1\~n„»., uPn»i.'ynCAt State of Minnesota
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
EIGH17•FIFTA 3Z4~
SSS,tON HOUSE FILE No.
Pehnr.»y 17, 7lN)S
Aathamd by Scahn: Petciann. N.: Hornstein and ErhartU
71te hill was taut fttr Ihz firs) lime uml rcCerred lathe Committee un Lt><al Gu~ernment and hteu~l>1,alimn AD7tirx
A bill for an act
relating to municipalities; authotzing municipalities to establish street
improvement districts and apportion street improvement fees within districts; ,:
requiring adoption of street improvement plan; authorizing collection of fees;
proposing. coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 435.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF M[NNFSOTA:
Section t. j435.391 MUNICIPAL STREET IMPROVEMENT D15TRICTS.
Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For the purposes of This section the following terms
have the meanines riven them.
> (b) "Municipality" means a home rule charier or statutory cif
i (c) "Governing body" means the city council of a municipality
! {d) "Municipal street" means a street, alley or public way in which the municipali~
is the road authority with powers wnferred by section 429.021.
r (e) "Street improvement district" means a geographic area designated by a
s municipality within which street improvements and maintenance may be undertaken and
i financed according to this section.
+ (f) "Improvements" means construction, reconstruction,' and facility upgrades
r involving> right-of--way acquisition; paving: curbs and gutters• bridges and culverts and
r their repair; milling; overlaying; drainage and storm sewers• excavadom base wark•
> subgrade corrections; street lighting; traffic signals; signage; sidewalks' pavement
i markings; boulevard and easement restoration; impact mitigation• connecfion and
! reconnection of utilities; turn lanes; medians; street and alley returns; retaining walls'
! fences; lane additions; or fixed transit infrastructure, trails, or pathways.
1 (g) "Maintenance" means striping, seal coating, crack sealing pavement repair
sidewalk maintenance, signal maintenance, street light maintenance, and signage.
Section 1. I
r
U?/1I1300S C7`4RIJK US-??.+4
z.i Subd. 2. Authoriralion. A municipality may, by ordinance, establish municipal
:.: street improvement districts sari may deL~ay all or part of the total costs o! municipal
'_3 street improvements and maintenance by apportionint sweet improvement fees to all of
z.o the parcels located in the disu•ict.
's Subd_ 3. Uniformity. The total costs of municipal sweet improvements and
2.6 maintenance muss be apportioned tp all parcels or tracts of land located in the established
z.~ street improvement district on a uniform basis within each classification of real estate.
z.a Suhd. 4. Adoption of plea. Before establishittt;? a municipal street improvcment
2.9 di5lriCt a' aathpriZiq° astreet improvement fee, a mpnicipali[y must propose and adopt a
z.to sweet im,~rovement plan [hat identifies and estimates the costs of proposed improvements
2, t I and maintenance for the following five years and identifies the location of the municipal
z.tz street improvement district. Notice of a public hearing on the proposed plan must be eiven
2.t3 by mail to all affected landowners at least ten days before the hearing and posted for at
z.ta least ten dambefore the hearing. At the public hearing, the governing body must present
z.t5 the plan, and all affected landowners in attendance must have the opportunity to comment
z.ta before the floverning body considers adoption of the plan.
ate Subd. 5. Use of fees. Revenues collected from property in a district from the
z.JS fee authorized in this section nmst be placed !n a separate accountand he used only
z.t9 for projects located within that same district and identified in the mtuucipal street
z.zo improvement disvict plan.
z.zt Subd. 6. Collection; up to 20 years. The ordinance adopted under this section must
z.zz provide for the billing and payment of the fee on a monthly, quarterly, or other basis
z2a as directed by the governing body. The governing body may collect municipal sweet
z.2a improvement fees within a sweet improvement disvict for up to a maximum of 20 years.
z.zs Fees that, as of October ! 5 of each calendar year, have remained unpaid for at least 30
z.2e days may be certified to the county auditor for collection as a special assessment payable
2.27 in the following calendar year against the affected property.
z.2s Subd. 7. Notice; hearings. A municipality may impose a municipal sweet
z.zy improvement fee provided in this section by ordinance. The ordinance must not be voted
z.3o on or adopted until after a public hearing has been held on the question.
z.i t Subd. 8. Nol exclusive means of financing improvements. The use of the
2.a2 municipal street improvement fee by a municipality does not restrict the municipality from
2.3't imposing other measures to pay the costs of local sweet improvements or maintenance.
Section ]. 2
czrz9ros
s
REVISOR CMR/AA AO&]199
Lt .................... moves to amend H. F. Na. 3248 as follows;
t.z Page 1, line 23, after the period insert, ""Fixed transit infrastructure" does not
t.3 include commuter rail rolling stocks light rail vehicles or transit way buses• capital
I.a costs for park-and-ride facilities; feasibility studies; planninfy alternative analyses
t s environmental studies en>;ineering, or construction of transit ways• or operating assistance
t.6 for transit ways."
t.~ Page 2, line 33, after "maintenance" insert "Lexcept that a municipality must not
t.a impose special assessments for proiects funded with street improvement fees"
~.r
J V
1; ~',. ' p '%~~ ~ ter' ~P ~.
~~.
,~~ ~ ~ ~,,
,'
., ~
SAp~Yv',, ~9 ~'^ ~ I^
r% ^$~
,o if ~,i 4'~ ~~~ C N
r= F ~ ~
and ~ ~t, f a'`~ § 'ly 3 p N C
J ~ j ~
o ~ ~ 3
~ x
~ ~ w ro
~ 3 ~ ~
t
~ u_ m ~
i L ° N
~ ro
~ C n o rnt
~ 3 c a m
O t~4'C ~ Nam
C C ~ 7
v ~ o -~ ~4=
~. N
d ~ y ° °~~~
3 ~ v>w
01 ~ L o c v ~..
L q~ y0 'i~ ° ~ F a~
V) > K o r= £
~ a o 3 y m
C ~ F- ` ~'f6~°'
` '~ Q ~ ~
h- _
3 ~ o
~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~
a a ~Yr~
~, ~ _ o
m ~ U v U a w
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ a 3 b E
V1 ~ i ~ r- ~ o
V d o a r ~ m
~ £ 0- r°, 3 ;, w m
+~+ ~ N S a~° ~~
~ W r ~ ~ o ~,°
C
O
d
y ~ ~ o ti M
++ N Q1 N 1(~ ~
~ C ~
o ti h
~, ~
a ti
~ w ~ ~
N ...
r ?!
sa
1-
~
~
~ o
N
~ N
of
N Q c
'7 p
d M
O
N '~ ~ R
t0 O
~
t6
~
F...
v Efl ifl F
~
w
C
7
~ O
U
T N
E C ~
~ d
~ o
c ~ s
3
U ~ a~ ~,
N m ~
~; ,
,.. ; - ~°:
~ ..t.,, ~
S ~~~
~.
,. µ~ y ,
~ AF '~ `.
4_
~ ~ ~~
~..
>; j..
- ' ~" ;~
~s ._ ;~.
.S,_ -... ~ ~.,
r'' ,~ ~, ,.. 1'=,
~i`l.-
~ Oho ~"Ed~E~AL
ANNOUNCEMENT ATTACHMENT C
Greater Minnesota
JOINT APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL FUNDS
'vlinnesota Deparnnent of Transportation
and
Department of Public Safety
Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology
in partnership with State Aid for Local Transportation
t p°f7o t_oc ~L
INTRODUCTION
The Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology (OTST) is soliciting for approximately $] 8 million
(see Appendix H for distribution) over three years (FY 2010, FY 201 l & FY 2012) of local
projects for three programs: Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), High Risk Rural
Roads Program (HRRRP), and Central Safety Fund. In the past, each of these programs was
managed separately. In an effort to simplify the process one application with one deadline will
be used. The Mn/DOT selection committee will evaluate each application, prioritize and
determine the best funding source for each.
Independent of the program from which funding will be secured; certain requirements must be
met to receive funding.
]. Application must be postmarked on or before February I3, 2009.
2. Only stand-alone projects will be considered. It is recognized that portions of larger
projects have elements that improve the safety of an intersection or section of roadway.
Safety features, such as guardrail, that are routinely provided as part of a broader project
should be ftutded from the same source as the broader project. Proposals should.be
limited to those that can be considered legitimate stand-alone safety projects.
3. Applicants are strongly encourages to coordinate with other jurisdictions and agencies
involved in the project. A letter from each of these agencies is required stating that they
are aware of the project and have no objections. These letters do not imply participation
in funding. Any projects proposed on or adjacent to state roads should be discussed with
District Traffic Engineers before the project is submitted.
4. All applications should consult the 2D07 Minnesota Strate>?ic HiQhwav Safety Pian
(SHSP); particular attention should be paid to A~uendix IV: Crash Data Summary by
ATP/District; Priority Strategies by County, pages A.4-55 through A.4-61. The number
of check marks assigned by county to each critical emphasis area should be a starting
point for selecting projects for this solicitation.
5. Projects must specify both a beginning and an ending reference point. This is to expedite
the environmental review and historical site evaluation process.
6. Applicants should use the "Proactive Spectrum" (Appendix B) when selecting a project.
A minimum of 70% of the projects awarded to each Area Transportation Partnership
(ATP) will be proactive. A maximum of 30% of projects awarded to each ATP will be
2008 Combined Solicitation Program
reactive projects and must have abenefit/cost ratio (B/C} greater than i to be considered
for funding.
A "Proactive Spectrum" has been created to achieve the maximum safety benefit as
intended by HSIP. The idea is to address the lower cost/higher payback strategies on
the left side of the spectrum prior to implementing the higher cost strategies on the
right side of this spectrum.
NOTE: The Proactive Spectrum is not all inclusive of all safety strategies.
Additional strategies may be appropriate for some roadways. Agencies should
consult Dave Engstrom (651-234-701b) for strategies not shown.
Applicants should use the Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT) for
preliminary crash data and to aid in corridor selection. Non-state aid agencies not
currently using this application should contact their District's traffic engineer for
assistance. OTST will supply the final crash data for project evaluation. Requests for
final data should be submitted to Julie Whitcher (see below for contact information) no
later than January 12, 2009. Requests made after January 12 may be significantly
delayed due to limited resources and may not be available until after the application
deadline.
8. Road Safety Plans are an important initial step in developing a set of prioritized safety
countermeasures which best meets the needs of a jurisdiction. To that end, OTST has
agreed to set aside approximately $2 million to complete Road Safety Plans for
interested jurisdictions. The contract will be developed and managed by Mn/DOT.
Each participating jurisdiction will be committed to working with the consultant to :assist
in identifying problem areas, setting priorities, and determining acceptable
countermeasures. No financial involvement is required. Bach jurisdiction will need to
indicate there desire to be included in this contract by checking the appropriate box on
the subnuttal form. If participation requests exceed the available funding, we will
prioritize by the amount of fatal'and serious injury crashes occurring on the jurisdictions
facilities. General guidance for Road Safety Plans is contained in Appendix C.
9.. While Road Safety Audits are sfill useful safety investigation tools that focus on reactive
situations, they will not be funded in this solicitation.
10. Maximum Federal Funding is 90% of eligible total project costs up to:
• $250,000 for individual proactive projects
• $750,000 for proactive projects involving partnerships with more than one county
• $1,000,000 ar as much as available by ATP for reactive projects.
• Agencies may submit multiple applications.
NOTE: There is a minimum 1'0% local match required. The match must be made in
non-federal "hard dollars". Soft matches (i.e, volunteer labor, donated materials,
professional services) will not be included in the match.,
11. Federal funds are available to Greater Minnesota counties; and agencies within those
counties with the ability to receive State Aid. Non-State Aid agencies must be sponsored
by their county. Appendix H contains the breakdown of funding available by ATP.
2008 Combined Solicitation Program
12. Funding for the project will be eliminated from the program if it does not meet the
deadlines described in Appendix G. The deadline is April 15 of the year that it is
programmed.
l3. Agencies must agree to hold a meeting involving safety partners and other
community leaders such as law enforcement, emergency responders, Mn/DOT
District representatives, school representatives, and township officials during 2010-
201 L
14. Before and after summaries and data collection forms must be completed prior to
finai payment. (examples for both are available on State Aid for Local Transportation's
(SAL'I~ traffic safety page)
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/sa traffic safety.html
2008 Combined Solicitation Program 3
CRITERIA FOR PROACTIVE PROJECT FUNJDING
A minimum of 70% of the projects awarded to each ATP will be proactive. The criteria that
will be used to select these projects are detailed in this section of the document:
Proposed projects qualify for the Proactive Program by the following criteria:
• Meets the intent of the SHSP - tell us the critical emphasis area & strategy
o Example: Stearns County has 3 check marks in "Keeping Vehicles on the
Roadway and Minimizing the Consequences of Leaving the Road" so Stearns
County proposes to use enhanced pavement markings along County Highway 1.
• Agency agrees to maintain for the life of the project -see Appendix E
• Leiter from other agencies involved in the project
o (e.g.) Otter Tail County submits an application for County-wide lighting.
improvements at CSAH/TH intersections. They need to include a letter from
Mn/DOT District 4, stating that the District is aware of the project and has no
objections.)
• The number of Safety Plans funded will be dependent on the number of quality
applications received and an evaluation of the work plan.
Prioritization
Projects will be prioritized using the following criteria:
• SHSP Report Priority list by Count~i (check marks) -pages A.4-55 through A.4-61 of
Appendix 1V found at:
httn://www.dotstate.mn.us/traff eena/safety/shsn/Aari'endix2007.ndf
• Most recently available average daily traffic (ADT) -Provide and Credit source of data
• Fatal (K) and serious injury (A) crashes (10 years) -rate per mile
• Cost/mile or Cost/intersection
Bonus points will be assessed for the following situations:
• Past of a longer range plan (Safety Plan or Road Safety Audit Recommendations) -
' include an excerpt from the existing plan
• Segment is on the "Top 5% List" (2008 HSIP Report)
2008 Combined Solicitation Program
CRI.TERaA FOR REACTIVE PROJECT FUnrD1NG
A maximum of 30% of the projects awarded to each ATP will be reactive. Reactive projects
must have a B!C greater than 1 to be considered for funding. The criteria that will be used to
select these projec#s are detailed in this section of the document.
Proposed projects qualify for the Reactive Program by the following criteria:
• Must have a benefitlcost (B/C) ratio of 1.0 or greater.* (Note: The B/C ratio shall
exclude right-of--way costs.)
*Only crashes contained within the Minnesota Department of Transportation
database can be used to determine the B/C for project submittals. Mn/DOT will
provide crash data. If it is found that crashes have been omitted from Mn/DOT's
database, you will need to provide the crash report to have those crashes entered
into the system.
• Agency agrees to maintain for the life of the project -see Anuendix E.
Required Material and Special Instructions for Reactive Projects
Following, is a list of material required to submit per project. Failure to provide this information
will exclude the submission from consideration:
• Project plan or preliminary layout/scope of work proposed
• Crash data; include all crashes from calendar years 2005-2007. Only crashes contained
within the Minnesota Department of Transportation's database can be shown. This is to
insure that all project proposals can be equally compared. All crash data must be
obtained from Mn/DOT. If you believe there has been a significant crash increase since
2007, call Dave Engstrom (651-234-70] 6) or Julie Whitcher (b51-234-7019) to discuss
the situation.
Crash data requests must be made before January 12, 2009. Requests made after
January 12 may be significantly delayed due to Limited resources and may not be
available until after the application deadline.
HSIP Worksheet - A sample worksheet is included in Appendix D. An Excel version of
the HSIP Worksheet is available at:
httn:/Iwww.dot.state.mn.us/trafficen safety/index.html
Each submission should also include the following:
• Cover Letter -include submitting agency, project manager, description of project,
Federal funds required, local match and source.
• Location map.
Letter from other entities involved in the project stating their awareness of the project that
they have no objections.
The Recommended % Change in Crashes should betaken from the Desktop Reference for Crash
Reduction Factors published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
2008 Combined Solicitation Program
publication number FHWA-SA-07-015. This document is also available at:
http://www.transportation.or~/sites/safet m~~ana~ementldocs/Desktop"/o20Reference%20Complet
e.ndf
Include documentation on how the appropriate crash reduction factor was determined.
The proposal will have to demonstrate in logical fashion how each improvement will impact
each type of crash. The Mn/DOT Selection Committee will review the documentation and
estimates for accuracy and concurrence with logic. Some examples of acceptable estimates are
listed below:
Example 1: A project is proposing closure of a median at an intersection. Logically, all left
turning and cross street right angle crashes will he eliminated (100% reduction in these types of
crashes):
Example 2: A project is proposing revision of a signal including creating a protected left
turning phase for the minor leg of the intersection. From page l 1 and 12 of the FHWA Desktou
Reference for Crash Reduction Factors; for all crashes a range of 15-30% is shown. For left-tum
only, a range of 35-70% is shown. For both cases, there were four appropriate studies. The
averages for these studies were 25% and 50%, respectively. The applicant can choose one of
these averages, but not both.
Example 3: A project is proposing adding right tun lanes at a signal on two approaches. Page
28 of the FHWA Desktop Reference for Crash Reduction Factors shows an 8% reducfion (EB
analysis) in all crashes. 8% should be used.
The project initiator can contact Dave Engstrom, 65]-234-7016, to discuss crash reduction
assumptions for each improvement project prior to submittal.
The most beneficial improvement included in the proposed project should be used to determine
the crash reduction factor and the recommended service life (Apaendix E).
In the interest of standardizing the calculation of an annual cost associated with a given type of
highway safety improvement, the following inputs are used in all calculations for HSIP ..
submissions:
/ Discount = 4.5%
/ Traffic Growth = 3% (The default value of 3% is a conservative statewide average. The
2008 Combined Solicitation Program 6
use can input a different value with documentation.}.
/ Salvage Value of Right of Way and change in maintenance costs are negligible.
Deadlines
Six (6) copies of the application must be postmarked no later than FEbt'Ual'~~ 13, 2QQ9.
Please mai] completed application to:
Julie Whitcher
Assistant State Traffic Safety Engineer
Mn/DOT
1500 County Road B2
MS 725
Roseville, MN 55113
Purfher Assistance
Applicants having questions or requiring assistance with this application should contact:
Julie Whitcher, OTST
651-234-70]9
Julie.Whitcher n,dot.state.mn.us
Dave Engstrom; OTST
651-234-7016
Dave. Engstrom(a~dotstate.mu.us
Mark Vizecky, State Aid
651-366-3839
Mark.V izecky~dot.state.mri.us
2008 Combined Solicitation Program 7
H
y
61
V
Yr
a
.r
~M+
V
n.M
d
w
V
d
.~
L
F
NI
d
c~
W
O
4.
Pr
q
O
.~
•r
U
.ti
O
fJ]
.a
O
O
N
a
a
V
a
[a~J~
f""~
!~
~~ I
d
~sy
4N9
~~
~~
u
[?
0
y1 M
I'V$ N
N
~~~~
.. .
y^
a
F+
~~
R~
r
0
'gnu
~~
.~
0
.~
a
P~
0
a
C ~
_~ ~~
n
N
~ ~ ~ ~ 9
~ R~=1Uv~Qin
......
Q~
R
~'
a
R
0
f
C
a
G
r
.~
N
q
N
~~'
N
'C
u
W~
F
d
Gu
0
w
R
U
O
b
c
0
U
0
0
N
ApUendix C
ROAD SAFETY PLAN GUIDANCE
(See pace 2, #8 for funding information)
The Road Safety Plan concept is designed to build on the foundation established by Minnesota's Strategic
Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). This plan will provide the basis for systematic implementation of safety ,
measures across the entire jurisdiction. Local jurisdictions have several options to develop a Road Safety
Plan -the end result of the process should be a document that identifies a gamut of proactive measures, based
on current crash trends that wilt increase the overall safety for roadway users. Each jurisdiction will develop
a prioritized list of proposed safety improvements for the entire roadway network or a significant subset by
route and location. Development of a Road Safety Plan will be advantageous in securing future safety funds
since the systematic identification of crash problems and potential countermeasures will be a focus in the
foreseeable future.
The process shall begin by referring to Minnesota's SHSP to determine which Critical Emphasis Areas are
problematic based on recent crash analysis that was conducted. The SHSP identifies some potential
countermeasures that may reduce the crash frequency; local agencies can supplement these countermeasures
based on their successes in implementing safety projects as long as the measure can be systematically -
installed at low cost throughout the region. It should be noted that the SHSP is a starting point for the
analysis. A local agency is not precluded from identifying crash locations and proposing countermeasures
that are not noted as a Critical Emphasis Area in the SHSP. The plan should identify the ]ocation and
approximate installation dates of the proactive measures that have already been implemented. Additionally,
the plan should identify what proactive measures have not yet been initiated. Finally, proactive strategies to
deploy across a system of roads (i.e., selected corridors, CSAHs, alt roads) should be identified.
Since the SHSP utilizes a comparison of crashes within an ATP acounty-wide crash assessment maybe
needed to focus on local crash experiences. if a jurisdiction wide crash analysis is pursued the results should
identify trends (i.e., critical emphasis areas} and any locations where a disproportionate number of crashes are
occurring. This analysis should also documen# any roads that appear on a MnIDOT high crash location list
(High Risk Rural Roads, Top 5%, Top 150 Intersections, Top 200 Segments, etc.). Additionally, the local
jurisdiction is encouraged to generate a system wide ranking representing local roads of concern. This
ranking should incorporate crash history but also may incorporate traffic characteristics, geometric
considerations, or other unique or system-wide concerns of interest to the local agency. Finally, a prioritized
listing ofnon-engineering strategies should be developed and any efforts of local safe community coalitions
should be documented.
Preliminary fmdings should be presented to the project manager from the local agency. The project manage;
will provide guidance on producing a brief report that identifies;
• Current safety status ofthe roadway network (crash locations, etc.)
• Crash history
• Proactive safety measures (implemented and not implemented)
• Non-engineering measures that are commensurate with the crash characteristics in the study area
• Any other appropriate topic as determined by the project manager
Findings should be presented in a formal presentation to the appropriate oversight committee. This
presentation should highlight the findings of the written report and encourage input from the decision makers.
These decision makers should conununicate a willingness to implement the recommendations and take
ownership of the document-upon completion of the Road Safety Plan.
2008 Combined Solicitation Program l0
Appendix D
Sample HSIP Worksheet
r - , Stste
~ Study '
~-J~P
Control
T.HJ
~ -
Beginning .
Ending ,
Conoty,C)
Period .
Study
SerHoti:
Roadwa
Location,-•
Ref. Pt - ,
Iief:Pt.
or Tunnship
. Begins ~ .
l'erlod;En
worksheet
' Hcnuepin
1-094 PorOendAvc to NiwUet A~~e - 3ig0,848 :4iIX1.357. Co.-, J/I/2005 !2!31/2007.
DescripHdn of
Proposed Wotic `: Construct Westbound auxiliary lane between Pon}znd and Nicollet -
AttldentPlap7
C I Rearfod' -
3 ~ ` ? S+desx5pd~~.
n J LcR Tun M4~n t,+ric ~ SR+ghllvglc. 4,7 Rm oRRodd 89 }Iead.0iJ , 6.90,99
od Snmc Due
ion. "- S.dwwi
'
~ Pedei-traan Other Tnlsl ~''
J
• ! ~:m
3 ': F;
, .
i .. .`A ,
Stud, ~ . .
Period. a ~
t ,. ~-
Nprnberof ` :
~~ ..
~ - :
Crashes ~ ~ C 3 ~ 3
_, m -
ne fgi P~, 7 3 10
H .- ..
°/: Change ~ ~: ~ F,
:.
,
~.:
.
to Crashes .;-`:
: ..
~
,
, -
'use oeski
.
., ..
~
.
Nn f
t ~ iu :
s° F: P~ -25% -25%
,.F
;
.
'~ A!
Change in ~ ~'•
a>vo °r ' C -0
75 -
D
ZS
- .,, . ;
,
.
n~iiM x ~ . ,
d
eraihw ~+. PU -1.75 -0.75 .:;'2.54
ear(Sefery lmpcovement Ctmstruct+on}
• 2U 13
.
..
.. _:.
....., ,., . •''. -' Study, ..- ; ., .
~
~ ': Periti(1: Anonel : ' ~
' ~ ' Type of ?Change Sn Change to i
~ ~~L ~ ~~ O r;
~
rojeci Cost (e>;dude R+gbfof W
ay) :
S 600
000 Crash' ' Crashes •CrAShe'a' ~Gosj
et+
(
Ypeh Annus~l
ene`
B s ~'
.
,
, _ p
.
~ ,
, ,
ixs
'
s
s
~
ghl. of Way ho
(optional) ;•:
t
, P S 788,000 Using present ~ro+vh values,
raQie GrowW Factor 3% A S 390,000 $_ $ 7~$
$] 3
,
~ 000
C- ~ 600
~api(alAeeovE
~ A S 12],000 ,
See "Cafculutiau"rheeifor
1. Discount Rate 4.$% C •0.7$ -0.25 S 75,000 $ 18,767 onmr+lzollan.
2. Pro'ect Service Lift (n) 30 PD ~ -2.50 -0.83 S 12,000 S 10,009
Total Office of Traffic, Safety end
$ 28,775 Technhl }• llecember 2008
2008 Combined Solicitation Program 11
Appendix E
Recommended Service Life Criteria
Description
Intersection & Traffic Control
Construct Turning Lanes
Provide Traffic Channelization
Improve Sight Distance
Install Traffic Signs
Install Pavement Marking
Install Delineators
Install Illumination
Upgrade Traffic Signals
Install New Traffic Signals
Retime Coordinated System
Construct Roundabout
Pedestrian & Bfcycle Safety
Construct sidewalk
Construct Pedestrian & Bicycle
Overpass/Underpass
Install Fencing & Pedestrian Barrier
Construct Bikeway
Service Life Description
ears
Structures
Widen or Modify Bridge for Safety
Replace Bridge for Safety
Construct New Bridge for Safety
Replace/Improve Minor Structure for Safety
Upgrade Bridge Rail
Service Life
ears
Roadwav & Roadside
Widen Traveled Way (no lanes added) 20
20 Add Lane(s) to Traveled Way 20
20 Construct Median for Traffic Separation 20
20 Wide or Improve Shoulder 20
] 0 Realign Roadway (except at railroads) 20
2 Overlay for Skid Treatnnent 10 .
10 Groove Pavement for Skid Treatment 10
20 Install Breakaway Sign Supports ]0
20 Tnstali Breakaway Utility Poles ] 0
20 Relocate Utility Poles 20
5 Install Guardrail End Treatment 10
20 Upgrade Guardrail 10.
Upgrade or Install Concrete Median Barrier 20
Upgrade or Install Cable'Median Barrier 10
Install Impact Attenuators 10
20 Flatten or Re-grade Side Slopes 20
Install Bridge Approach Guardrail Transition 10.
30 Remove Obstacles 20
] 0 Install Edge Treatments ~
20 Install Centerline Rumble Strips 7
20
30
30
20
20
2008 Combined Solicitation Program ] 2
Appendix F
Combined Program for HSIP, HRRRP, and Central Safety Fund
Greater Minnesota Local Solicitation
December l0"'-January 12ih
In November, a letter of notification will be sent to all eligible agencies. Agencies should submit their crash requests to
Mn/DOT as soon as possible. Requests made after January 12'h may be significantly delayed due to limited resources.
llecem her/January/February
Each eligible agency selects project(s) and compiles a solicitation packet based on the criteria guidelines. Any agency that
disputes the results of their crash data requests can contact Mn/DOT toreconcile those differences.
February 13`" -.-
Solicitation packets should be submitted to Mn/DOT's Office of Traffic, Safety aril Technology and postmarked no later.
than Febmary l3, 2009.
February l6" --March 6t°
Mn/DOT Off ce of Traffic; Safety and Techuology will review each solicitation packet for compliance with HSIP criteria
guidelines. A preliminary list of prioritized projects is developed. If any significant changes to the solicitation packed are
determined during the review process, Mn/DOT will work with the submitting agency to reconcile these differences.
March 9"' -1VIarc6 13th -
A revisedaist of proposed "projects is then compiled and prioritized. This list, along with the solicitation packets., is given to
the Mn/DOT Selection Committee foi review and approval: The selection committee is comprised•of: Representatives
from Mn/DOT Office of Traffic, Safety. and Technology, MrJDOT State Aid:for Local Transportation and the SHWA.
March 1G'h - March 23rd
Area Transportation Partners (ATP)(Districts including District Trafficlsngineers'aregtven the list of projects recommended
for funding:
March 24'h -April 15t°
(ATP)/Aistricts give their concurrence to the projects recommended for funding.
March 24`b -April 15th
DistricfPlanners revise their ATIP to include selected HSIP and HRItItP:prajectsonce concturence is:given.
March 24`h -April l5'h
Notification is sent to applicants announcing selected projects.
2008 Combined Solicitation Program 13
i
A»pendix G
A brief overview of the Delegated Contract Process (DCP) has been provided below. The outlined criteria must
be completed to meet the April I S"' deadline requirement for all selected projects:
1. Environmental document prepared by sponsoring agency and a~uroved by DSAE
and SALT.
2. Right of way certificate approved or condemnation proceedings have been formally initiated*.
3. District State Aid Engineer {DSAE} approval of plans and a satisfactory review by State Aid that project
plans are complete and reflect the project that was selected.
4. Engineer's Estimate and working days esfimate*.
5. Special provision information*.
6. Utility relocation certificate*.
7. Permits received or NPDES permit filled out by sponsoring agency*.
8. SALT requests DBE goal.
9. Plans reviewed and approved by SALT.
10. SALT requests authorization for HSIP or HRRRP projects.
11. Bid opening can be set after authorization by SLAT and sponsoring agency.
12. Sponsoring agency prepares proposal, sells project documents and advertises per
State Statute (required ad language provided by SALT).
] 3. Bid opening should be within 90 days of authorization.
] 4. DBE clearance must be given by Mn/DOT Office of Civil Rights before project is awarded by
sponsoring agency (if applicable).
'"These items are all submitted io SALT along with DSAE approved plan set.
Additional Resources:
For detailed information about the FEDERAL (DCP} process, please visit our website:
www dot state.mn.us/stateaidldc /~dcpchecklist.htm
If you have any questions about the Federal Aid process, please contact your DSAE or Merry Daher with SALT
at Merry Daher(a`dotstate.mn.us or (65,1).366-3821. '
2008 Combined Solicitation Program 14
Appendix H
Distribution of Funds
. s ~ HStQ at~~iRR
c f RP~I7ts~~a~1;~#ian ~~ =~~r,~~:~ :Fy ,T.
'
'
~
~
,
.~ _
~~]] 4
~ ~~~~ ~~4~r } 2sT~~~h'"~l~
?~ +„ _~_ ~.,. .s
u ~ .
ti
4
.. ~~~~ 9+~ta Y'
- ,.ti ~~. ..c
}. x,,. ~
_ 'u.1 (i7 d ~
,
.
~ W R
~»,~^ td ~S~.G~i~, .i'~ '`~`o r/
~~s .~-,.. .k
.A-._
~,,;~-;~~K'" S ,~ 205,952.00 767,647,06 767,647.06
`~ ~~_._.._._,~~ - 450,000.00 450,000.00
/~~~<~~
~~~ ~
~r~ 1
853
538:00 1
870
588
24 1
870
58824
,~
,
, ,~ ,
, ,
,
. ,
,
~^`~ ` ~ ,v ~ ~~~ 600,000.00 600,000.00
`~'~°~ ~'' ' '`~' `"`
d T ~f1kA~''4T3 hri . `~ ~ R~~'~^/ .tip 811,504.00 1,429,411.76 1,429,411.76
Yt'`;~~~";'' " 669,585.00 723,529.41 723,529.41
~=~~,~~;<`~' ~<'~ 52,389.00 679,411.76 679,411.76
2,000,000.00
,,~ $ 5,592,968.00 $ 6,522,599.24 $ 6,522,600.24
C~KAPID TOTAL
$ 18,638,167.47
*1n addition to the HSIP and HRRRP funds listed above, there is up to SZM in available for Road
Safet Plans. See Appendix C and paa_e 2, item #8 for more information.
2008 Combined Solicitation Program 15
Appendix I
Templates for Application Attachments
Additional information and columns maybe added as necessary to describe proposed projects.
The Excel format of these documents can be found on OTST's website:
httpa/wwn~.dot.state.nm.us/trafficen /iy safety/index.html
Inplace Strategies
Beginning Ending
Roadway Reference Point Reference Strategy Description
Point
2008 Combined Solicitation Program 16 .
y
~+
V
~O
1~
67
d
A
~.Q
a
U
Q
^^~..
1~'l
b
n N
N m
u° ~E '9
N O
V O
h
d
e
`
a ey
N m
FF
o=g
a~
~ a o
a ~' `
S m O d
m
r E
a h
N
exGn
n
~ C ~
O
Q V
=
y, N
V p
C
C
a
LLV
O c
y v° ~
r
h
G ~
$
O
F
°
a
b
c
e w
n
w
N
9
N 25
e
a` y
¢ 2
v
~ u
E
m
N
Z
o U
c
0 9 .
t
u
O
a
> pEp
~C
"£v
u a
~ m
0
$ ~ £
~ °
m
C ~ u ~
^9 ~ G
W ¢ a°
C u
C
C ~..
m C
m O
mca
a
~
x
O Q
N
~ v
C
°
V y
x
k
h
W1
U
~O
QI
Q
r
w
V
d
H
~~
V
CC
i.
a
_
d~
n ~+ ~
N V
U c ~ h
w
u
°'
O N O
°p
o
h
d ~j H
~°- = n c
W
Ov~?`c
y~ u
u u
L ~1
N
A
r
Y `
a
o N
~ u
d
0
~ d
q ~ L
n
~ ~ .~
O
~ Q V
a
U _
Y d
N
~
LL V
O m
u9 F~
O
o G ~
N Q
m $ o g g
ti p
pF L
Q u
a
2
C
C
m L
G
~
c
~
O) ._
t
b
~
p
a L
z
~
~ _
L
~
i~
-
w
w
N
~
~
C
O y
c
u
m ~
O
C
~ 0
_
O y
U
n o
u
d
U
0
m y
G
O
V ~ m
V Ol ~. C
a _`w E
w
3 z
!
N
~ 7
U
~
C
o u
Q
k
}F
dl
0
QI
.~
U
.O
b
~_
U
00
O
d
N
Greater Minnesota
~Nntesor
o~
9~o
JOINT APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL FUNDS
g
n a Minneso#a Department of Transportation
~ and Department of Public Safety
~
~
Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology
~ ~
~'pp ~pcL`' in partnership with State Aid for Local Tranportation
Due Date: Februa 't3, 2009
Project Name
Agency Contact: name, address, phone number, and
ema1(youwill receive an electronic confirmation that
your application was received):
ATP i County of
Municipality of ~~ i Township of Other
Requested Year of Funding (State Fiscal Year): 1- Must be 2010 r Must be 2012
(-~ Must be 2011 J-. Any Year
If this project is funded, do you agree to maintain it for the life of the project?
(See Appendix E' for FHWA Recommended Service Life Criieria} Yes
~~
Roadway type: (-, CSAH Z
O
~'' MSAH
-
Road Number _
~
County Road
i or Street Name: i ~
r" City Street o
['; Other ~ LL
~
r Attach detailed project description and map
List any proactive strategies already in place here or ~
use Inplace Strategies table (Appends I)
(see Appendix B for appropriate strategies)
J
Is this a single or multiple agency application? ~- Single Agency r Mulitple Agencies
Lead Agahcy ~ Other Agency Involved ~
Federal Funds ~ ~
- -=-- --------! Applicants are advised that local labor
materials
and
State Aid Funds ~ ,
,
equipment are NOT reimbursable wilh Federal funds,
_. _.._.. _..... _ _ .- _.__., . __._ .. _, or to be included in the local match, but may be used
Local Match (10% of Total in the total project cost.
projecfcostrequired) __-,."_-___...._....._---....-----_--~
Local labor, materials and
equipment - _-_.i
--
Total Project Cost
Proactive Project Reactive Project (B!C > 1)
r' (GO TO PAGE 2) C (GO TO PAGE 4)
'All references to appendices refer to the "Announcement Greater Minnesota Joint Application for Federal Funds."
F } ,q~
a x~' ; y ~~' ' ~ ~d ~ l~~F3y~"^~
a ~°.wt ,-~+,.. a t'. ~s:"c ..,:ri..
Proactive Projects
~ .~~~ N~'+~e35~~t~y~i ~
~~~~~.y~
r vv /Z.SY^ ++..
ilr yH~~~` } F ~ ~^4 ~
Yv,.r~~}°'..~. kXs !: ky~3~
~J
Type of Project: ~~ Lane Departure (COMPLETE PAGE 2)
r~, Systematic Intersection Improvements (COMPLETE PAGE 3)
r; Safety Plan -interested in participating in Statewide contract. See Appendix C for more information..
r, Other (Please specify} Contact Julie Whitcher before submitting a project in this category
_ __
5
',~;`: ~ .~ ~ ;.''~~~`~``~~k Lane Departure Projects ;
,. ~, d -
Required Attachments:
~, Attach Location sheet
r. Attach spreadsheet listing the following for each segment (see Appendix 1 for template): 0
(- Proposed Strategy ~
(` Abbreviated verbal description of segment (IE; Mississippi River to Main Street) ~
~"` Beginning and ending reference points ~
~ ~
r: ADT (list source of data}
r Miles to be upgraded Z
r; Fatal and A injury crashes (10 years, 1996-2007) Z
r:: K+A Crashes per mile N
Is this segment on the eligible list for the High Risk Rural Roads Program? (yes or no for each segment)
~ F`
' http:/lwww.dot.state.mn.us/stateaidlSALT Traffic Safety.html 0
r Is this segment on the "Top 5% List" (2007 HSIP Report)? (yes or no for each segment) ~
http:/Iwww.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/ a
~' Attach 2007 SHSP Priority List by County for County Project is located within W
r, Attach discussion of the number of check marks and how they will be addressed by this project ~
Summary Information
' ;. ~z.<
~
Enter the following TOTALS from the spreadsheet described above: d
Total Miles to be upgraded ~; Q
Fatal Crashes i A Injury Crashes K+A crashes per mile W
Z
Amount should include federal funding only
Cost per Mile ~ (not total project cost) ;
Additional Considerations ~ ~
U
Proposed project is a recommendation from a Safety Plan or a Road Safety Audit
~` (must provide excerpt from existin
lan} 0
g p ~
a
r Proposed project includes segments on the eligible list for High Risk Roads
Number of miles on list I
l
~'", Proposed project includes segments on the "Top 5% List."
Number of miles on list ~~
Mail six (fi) copies of the completed application to: Julie Wliitcher, Mn/DOT, OTSO MS 725,
1500 County Road 62
Roseville, MN 55113
651-234-7019
Proactive Projects
:~; Intersection Projects
'
r
Required Attachments:
~'r~ Attach Location sheet
r-i Attach spreadsheet listing the following for each intersection (see Appendix 1 for template):
r; Verbal description of intersection
~'; ADT for each leg of the intersection (list source of data)
Fatal and A injury crashes (10 years, 1996-2007) (Include only crashes within 500 feet on either side of the
r'
"
"
intersection or that are coded
intersection related.
r~ K+A Crashes per intersection
(-i Attach 2007 SHSP Priority List by County for County Project is located within Z
~"'; Attach discussion of the number of check marks and how they will be addressed by this project
Summary Information ~: ~
Enter the following TOTALS from the spreadsheet described above: ~
i
i
Total number of intersections to be upgraded ~ Z
Z
Fatal Crashes ~ i A Injury Gnashes ~ K+A crashes per intersection
~
~"; Cost per Irrtersection ; _
~
. _ _..._._. _. .: fl
Additional Considerations Z
O
H
Proposed project is a recommendation from a Safety Plan or a Road Safety Audit
r W
(must provide link to or excerpt from existing plan) (/~
W
Z
W
H
U
a
°
~
a
Mail sfx (6}copies of the completed application to: Julie Whitcher, Mn/DOT, OTSO,MS 725,
1500 County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
651-234-7019
i~,f"" `M"`'~'~''{~~ ~~'+' ~ ~ ~m "~''S2"h~x n Pv:»
~~. ~ ~.. ~wr~.~''. ~~ =~.A,t~ «y^_*.y4 Reactive Pro ects
,., 1; v7ryti '.r~2Y~r+n x'}A ,~ ~ ~}~ 'h rYie..*;.7.~at~" r ~`[:; ~ : ~^ '4 ?erlF ~ -
,~~ ~_ ~
~~{{yy'' ^~F` _x7,s ":'f~tt' ' ~i~ ~ ~+ : a s ,,._ ~.
a~~ '~*~
~ `aa'"'i sa; ~ ~+5~)~
Required Attachments:
~' Attach Location sheet
1-'. Verbal description of project
~' Plan sheets
~ All crashes (3 years, 2005-2007)
~~ Attach H51P Worksheet B/C Ratio (1
"~` ~ "~ `~ t" N, ~''» Summa In#ormation "
lk+'
S
'
•
'
~
.
i
. Y
.
~..
Y4
O
Attach a discussion of the rationale used in the selection of Crash Reduction factors Q
Q'
- ~
Service Life ~
~
n Z
~
z
N
O
a
w
_ ~
H
v
w
Mail six (6) copies of the completed application to: Julie Whitcher, MnlDOT, OTSO MS 725,
1500 County Road 62
Roseville, MN 55113
651-234-7019
0
.~
^\
""~
^ t•
L
`^~
[w`i+j
7
(///UAJ
~ /
^ ^
~~
0
^ ~~
~~
O
•~
Y /
~ /
M
0
N
^~
W
a
i
O
O
^~
1i/
A~
V
'~~
v /
Q
L
C
m C
m
'
N -'
N O
O N
m
m
m
N
(0
m
d
m
G
l0
a
C
l0
a
m
~
C C
m d
tl W
C
m
C~
O
C d O
C N C~
d
m a
m
C .D
N
C 'O
N O
C O a .O
d d
C b
d f0
C O N ~
~
C j ~ d
d N fl0
C O ~ rA j W
- O O
` j d
a
E ~
° ~ ~
d d •m
~ m
~ 'mo
N ro
' ~ ~'
G mo
N m
' ~
T ~
>+
~ ~
G wo
N moo ~o
N N +
~
°
~ N
c E N
c ry
~ ~ 4
w [~ N
c a N
c N
c a d
~ N
c E N
c 'o d
fn iA ~
c
~ N
>
~ N
> E N
c d N N
~~ c B to
c L
o
d U v U o
° c o
w ~j a rj U ~ o
° U U Cpj `~
~'
~ U _ = U U ~%
g' :: :: _ ::
°i
g' '. ff
= c
E
^c
~ ~
~
O U
N T •~ E
M O o
M ov
M d
O o a
M o
M a
d ov
M C ° c
p ~ >.
~ o
M a °
o
j 0' p° o ~, I
p~ ~
p O fp O L` C 'p O U O O L D O f0 f0 E D O 7 ~
N p
N A O E fV E (V E
N
V N d
C C N
C
N O«
U~ N
c
W N
C N V
C fA
N N d
c Z N O
C U
d N
C W Vl
C W d
C 2 N p
C V p O
C V C V 4 4
c Z ~
TQ
C W T
~ w
o ~
O O _
T
- T
- Ta
- W r..
o TQ
- W T Q
W O
o T ~
C Ta
c W >.Q
- W T Q ~'' Q
c W c W ~' Q
C W 3
O O In
N N U
C '` C
N C
~ C
~ ~
N C
d C
d y7
N C
N d
_ d
_ C
`7 d O
` N
U
U
~ U
(~
(~
U
U
r~
U' 7
U =
U
U U U U
C
U
~~
C~ a o o o '; o a ~ o
A
O ,n
r
N m
C m
c In
O ~
O ~
O u~
O m
C .n
O u~
O fo
C i0
~ 0
~ 0
~ 0
~ o m
~ C m
C
C V N N
~ W
d
C
E m N
m S N
m O> ~
~ O) a0
N
N W
d
N N
N
N W
N
N W
N ~fJ
d
M
~ d
~ d
M IA
d
M O
d
M O
d
M ~
N
M ~
O
?` 41
M
T (y
d
` r
O C
N~ O C
N~ O C
N ~ ql
O C
N m
O C
N O)
O C
N O
O C
N N O
O C
N W
O C
N m M O%/
o c
N W 0)
o c
N N >
O
N (p >
O
N tp >
O
N (p >
O ~
lV (p >
O~ fq ~
N (p ' ~Q a
'
Y1 LL
~
V
v m
O m
O m
f~ m
O m
O
fA
~
T
~
C
R ~
P ~ ~
~p .
d d
> E t
o° ~
o° =
~
o° N~
o N~
0 N~
0 N~
0 N ;O
0 N O
o c N~
o N O
o c ~
N
o? N
o? N
o? N
o? ~ O
0 3 °' ~
~ N
°' c
~
C F N v N v N v N v N~ N~ N~ N~ N Q N Q N~ tV .:. N V N~ N~ N v
O7
C
C
C iv M
.- M
e- M
O W
fA o0
fA N
M W
M M
fD
M
M ~
M
flo
M
W
M
~O "
M
M O
O
r
~ w~
Q' ~ W
r co
r 07
n O
V u) ~n Q~
M C O
~ to
N W
M M M CM') r b O m
C m - W N O c0 V M CD O M f[i fD (V f0 N s C C
^~ O
a M ~ O ~ O ~ ~ O W f0 'rt r
O O~ ~ O
M M
a
()
y~ .-
fH 69 (A M
H3 M
Vj Q
fA 10
fA t0
ffl fD
fA N
E!i T
V! ~ _
M fA fA f9 fA fA
O
N
r
N ~
7
'fl ~
T
O
~
In
O
O
o
h
~
O
O
O
O
C
•n O
0
Q
C W
~
O C
O
O
N
~ N_
~ O
O
O rn
r
W O
~
t` N
t0
h
r
~ p
O
O
O
O
~
O O
O
O
~
r 1~ r.:
M N
Ip O
O
U
p
C
~ td '-
W ~ M
V
~ Q
O) O
cD O~
O (D
N O
Y N
?'1 OI ~
O O
O O
O M
O ~
h, cr,. O
O
d ~ N ~ N tD u1 O r ~ CO M ~ fD ~N-- In r
C ~
" ~ ff3 ~ to A V1 fA fA ~ Y9 ~ ~ ~9 ~ Ifi ) fA
I
7
~~
O N
r
~ °'
O `0
E o O O
0 O
o O
0 O
o N
r~ O
o O
0 O
o O p
In .n O
o
~ .n o
° 0 o v~ u~ o o ~ r` r` o
w
C W
d ~
r o
E,9 o
~
~ -
~
~
M o
O
1f"J o
ILJ
m m
C r.
P7
tV •~
r
q7 m
C m
C o
O
O 0
O
1l') o
ffl
O v v
N N
N N In
N
O
N
7 O M
r» O
va 6
9 ~
fH ~
eA
fA 4
fA M
fA
fA f
M .- '-
(A as N
ev
V U
C
O
V d
~ ry
~' ~ 0
o O
O O
~ O
O O
O O
O sD
~ O
4 pO
O Op
O O
O O O
ffi ~ O
O
C ~
y~
O W
~:
N
o
fA
u7
r
r
M
O
O
I[i
N
m
C
n
D
G
O
O
O
i~
~ ~
r
U ~•, .
- M v ~n m M o r o rn M fn ~n M
N
C O
d U r
69 M
EH r
U3 N
V3 ~-
V3 N
fA V
fA a0
IA 41')
4'1 ~V
fF! O
IA N N
fA f/3 V
ff)
U
0
C
p
2 ~
c
d
>
~
o
C Q
L
O
U
C ~
C E
L
~ pl O
w °
O m
N V
.M~-
~ N
O
O
~
U
a
ci
N
~ Y
O ~,
c >
a
L •
M
~ Q N ~
d C
~ ~~
> ~,
~ ~ o
U
O Q v
~ ~ -
a ~
' m
U N
° d ~=
~ N
y a
~O ~
a v;
o a
m
° m
o
~ a
v n
~
c ~
d c o
> E
m
~
a ~
o m
c -
~
=
c
i c
c
o
u° d
~ ~ i
a
o
Q ~ m ti O m r
r N L ~ c
m >
~
m
t to
m
j «.
C =
Q b ~
O ~ L ~
O
i
a
~ ~ c fa In C
m /..
M w OD
c c
v U
o ~ o a~ U o p Q
o ~ N
~ iv ~
°
~
c '~
m
a Q
a r`
Z ai
a
a> E
m N
~ ~
U d
~ io
c
p ai Eo E°
.~ • ~
~
E ~
c
~
>
> M
E Q
`~ n
a~ d
~
"°
~
~ _
" >
0
o o
m
O o _
D ¢ ~ ,~
a ~ =
Q o
O o N N Y
C O~
~' `
~ d
o E
7
o O
c rn
E
m
~ d
' ~
U D
~ ~
3 ~
~
= C d
fp Y
£ tII N 1n
a a m
a
v
d 3°
N ~
m ° U ~C ~ c
d O
"' w vi d O O d N "O
'O ~ .D N UO o a ~ N Q ^ fn C d O- ~ N Q a °
~c c c ~ c a ~ c v m ~ G O
f6 m
7 m C = ~
'C °
E ~
- C O U C ~ ~ (A
E E O
O7 L c
m (0
m
C v m H Y ~ E m U E d ~ E c o m~ o cn E
E~ O C E E ~ O
'~ C E O C
' y
' O
' OiN N O O
'- O
O y
c ~ m
m O O C m O ~' N O • c6 "
~
a V
~ 3
~
m
~
:4 ~
m ~ ~ E
c m
-o ~ E
c a,
v ~
a E
c v
i
U ~ ~
m m E
a Q
v 3
a:
~
~
°
v m
°
v m
n
~
_~
m
~ m
n
~
~
m _
~
c
rn
m
fn
c
3
~
0 0
~ c
0l
m
~ z ~
0 m
o -o ~ '0 3 m 'v 3 m f°a 3 c y c~ c
o ~ 3
0
a m
~
~ a
¢ v
a ~
a m
z o
~ ~
a d
z O
~ x
w a>
z o
Urn o-
Uc~
~ s
z
p
~
N m
W a
m
~
~
W
~
M^ .
4 z
~
fl N
N
N N
w a
N
~
d
o '
L R L V
o Q o Q
o
C/ C' ~ O fY] ' `n N
r U U N C _
d ~ O
' Or _
a ~` y p d d N U S U N a p
4L ~ ~
m _
~ ~
a ~
x~, N
E C~
o ~
o ~
~ N
vac N
= d
~
' N
ym N
~c >
Q ~
~, `1 N d N N O
c w E~
U ~ U
°
a s
M x ~
m x
~ c Q o
n o m
d c~
a~ a
a x '
a~ o n Q
U x
4' > .o
c a n r d
S m m U m m
z °?
L d r
Mw
cn
~
U~
rn N
m~
o ,
LL .~ x
Mw
v
4.
gym` M x
Mw o
~
n. d
a
~~ ~~~ o
inz
~
C
~
~ N /~ N
Q
Y d
Q
O Q ~
C
O
C O D. N
C Y L
y
°-'Q ~
Y
o~-?
~ ~
s _
o ~U
oU C
o ~ C
oQ ~
~ C _O
°>
oU C
>
~ O
U C
a °
~ O
U C s C O
oU oU N
°
m
~ ~ ~ a ~ In (n " Cn (n - j ! j
(/~ U ~ U
T n U !n U
G in
o `o
o
-° rn
E o o y
~ o C
0 o N
E `o
° N
>
E `0 0 C
0
0 ~
`o > /
N
E `o I
`o n
o N u) ~
E o 0 ~
0
m
N ~ ~~
~ U m
d ~' ~' m
d ~
~ ~ m
N ~' U m
~ ~' Z.'
~ U
~ m
d Z`
~'
~' m m
d ~' 4J ~
~
cnvU U in inUU inr> mCJ iqU U? t nfJU m ~ ( ~ inU U C U inU in U U
~~
m
C
d
V1
d
d
m ~'
~ D
m o~
L
°
m m ~ ~ ~ .c
m ~ m ~ ? N o
m m
~ ~ O~ D L ]
c E N a-
E E O 7 N m
O O O ~ - C in
N _O ~
a~ of rn ~' m ~ _
c c c m m ~c E
~n m m C O O
o m ~
O .c L E o c~ d
_ >
c E E w~ E~ E
d ° ° o U
N a a a~i ~ w
~ ` .
0 0 0~ E o~°
E EQ, o EcnU
d ~ M N .~ ~ L ~
tp ~ S S ~ O O Z
~~¢Q~~Z
~ N U U c c~~
°' E o o r o_ rn
A m ~~ n d~~
L ~' m m a c
v inmmOao~in
N
N
a
0
~;
a
P
O
U
_' ~' E
g~
E~
a
O
.~
W
l~
1 I
N
.~
Q?
V
L
~^
L
U
.O
L
a.
i.f I.
^W
L
L
z
< k. { ° 8 i ` ~ s ~ `" _
~ pp~
Y a. . •~ ~' a
~ { ~ a=
~ ~ ~ 0 y 7q3 g N ~ V } dC 3 5~ S ~ S rI~' 3 S h
~ S S ~ C d F R
7
6
_
O •-
$
4
,E
C
i ? b
l ~
.... 5 i
r'
~
r ~ 2
~ ~ z
~ ~,
8
`~
o
'
~` .
~ p [~
~ .i7 `m
g ' ~
~ 3 3
~ ba
- g ~
~1 ~ ;
0 ~ E
~ j E
U E ~~;r'
7 j
~ n Y
~Yv E
~ ' 6
h ~
~ ~ m
~' o .5
z
a
> S
~
~ r
~
~
S
-
-. ~
..
~
.Sa. ~t
..
~ ti
F
~.' ~
~
~i
~
vF'i ~
..
P
~: 'y
3
F 4
i ~
¢ L
r~
~
~ $'
3 w
~ T
-
- c
z'
,? -
~
_
c
E
3 4
}l ~.
~ ~ G
t
1 <
C r
-
~
G Y
r
S~
v ~
W C 4
<
W E 2 C
< 6
W rG W x
W '. ~
u N ~
~ ' _
m
v ~ <
~p
i ~
W S
P~ .
p h
Z~ . l'•
~ ppw
~ .Y j >
E N
~~
~
` p
O ~
~. ~
v .j
4
~ E
~ 4
~ G S
S F
~ ,tE^
` 5
~ ~
E L
~
` £
~ F
~ =
Z.
- ~
~
`
L
~~ ~
k.
u r~ ~
~% y~ u ~~ u 8?
v -' E
v ~ u
t S
o S
'~ v S ~
v
u
V r
v 3
ci 5
U i
u >
u L
V 7
V <
t: C
V
:i _
-
3 5
C
L
E G ~ u f r L b ~' r`' R O °. ~ s~ S ~, m ~ Q
Y~ y
b `" ,~ S ~ z
~` w' V i E 4b' ~ ~ bS tiP. F. 'S N rS ~ F~ Si ~; d{ QQ ~
v • ;,4 '~ 1. H ~ r~r w F ~ ~
N
~ ~ ~ n .'.i~
J. N N a Q
M ~.
A
o e s y, ~, F Y, •~ ., ~
~ ~ ~
u h ~ X ~ Z "+ '~ g ~ ~
S
~ ~ ~ ~ c `' '' ` W v ~ h 8. v 2 k = ~' d o P ~• `c~ b £ ~ ~ a3 h ~ '`u ~ ~ S~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ L Y;
~
V ~
C
O Z
~ ~
.. C
= i
E i i
J
3
^' L
'3 ~.
w~
v
~"
S
E ~ F v
< V C
~ ~
_ ~
~ ~
z m
~
s Y
3 ~
~'
~ ~
~ ~
; ~ ~
U •~ C
~ ~
P
F
w F
`v
c~
,
~~
~
s
~
v
¢
v }
R
~
s
_ _
~_ C
~ to
_
~`~ ~
~ ,~, ~ c
v z
A
~ `
o S.' ~
~ ~
y 3 ~ .-
E
~ ,~
E s
T ~
E n
~. /.
l
& s
o ~ E - 0
y
' _ r
Y n
r z ~ j a ~ ~ W ~
~ ~ , c 4
~' ~
~
3 ~ ~ - a
_ ~
n
~ e
e
8 ~ EA
~
S c c
_ ~'
~
9 ?
"
r
E
o
<'
4 `
~
x g
'i
•F
v
~ t
~
c ~
v
N ~
~ q
° ~
~ °-
x
4 y~
U
~ <
,~ "
~
0
~ ~
~'
°
'c8g'
C~ 1M,
F
S ~,
r
o ~q
d F
~! ,
i
S
{ ~
5
i ~
~
_ a
s
c 4
Z
E &
tr
U ~
C
~ "
„
~ t
Ji
r o
=
V
~ ~
E
~
_
- C I~1C~
(Q d
a
y
~
f
~
~ _
V
~
b
7
~
i
.
.
4
Z
~
L
~
8
~ ~
'~
g
n
~
E
A
r
4
~ yy
F
~°
~
~ ~
~ ~
2 ~Et
6
u Z
Si
8
.
.
4
?yi
'~ y~.
2 •
~ • ~
- • <
,~r
x
x
~ W
a
~ F ~ E 4: ~
~ ~
py s ~
ed
~ • ~
i a
1 '2h o
~
E E
E ~
E g
~ c ~ c
~
~ g u ~i
L n~~
e u
F ~
~ 3
F rt
R ~.
i~ U
> q ~
P ~ M
` F ~"i
r
3
d `
`
~'~
~
E
t
~
C
~
Y
6
h
F
~ > C
,+ F
~ 8
N } 5
~
i
~ F
L~
L
~
~ 5
2'
~
2
2
[
Q
~
E
M
~
g
t-'~
m
c F
~ a
~ ~ p
7
~
g
£ +
Y
~
~
~
~
~
~
i
~
~
y
p
S
v
E
1.
g E
~
~
'-
E
'-
; 1}~~
~ L
~ O
~S 5 ' ~
~ 'x _ ' ~ ~ ~
-
. ~
- ~
~ z F z
u
~ c pp
~
u c .~
3~ w ~
f c> d "u
t RR~
i F
< • a
1 fi .
~ $
.
~
S
~ ~ ~
~~ ~ tt
~
h ~
- u~
$ u
3
~ `~'~ ,
g
° Y a
~ ~
'
_
~
} a
8
x
3
~
g
~
~ < u _ c ~ c
~ i
~ " ~ W O
w
N
~
~ ~ ~
Y . K ~ _
C i
r N J ; ~ 1 ~
~ vS
J
~ R ~
•A ~yQY~,
N 4
M
~ ~
~ ~ ~
'} ~
`r
t' i
~ •
~ z_
~
N
y _
~ ~
~
' 8
~ ~
1 ~
4 S
~ 4
~ 3
~ ~ ~
V ~
4 ~ ~
Z ~ L
~~
I . ~ N
/O~ /~~
V li
7 - 7 r~ V i .t 4 ~ ~~'
1 4 i :. ~ _ ~{' W j
. '~ !!
r •~,
j ~ L ~
4
i7 ~ _ ~
= FT .
- ` ~
Z S r F r
(
i S l
'
f : F
t . -
• ~ E 5
f ~ ~ S
Q h
a" ~
u ,. O x
. Z !L e
¢
~; T
H
<
~ ++ K
V W
~
a <
~S ~
n ~
Y ~~
~
~ ~ a
F -
N
s
~ •s
'
_
f ~
3 r
~
~
u ~
~
2 ~
J -
°i ~ ~
~ 7
~~
.~
~
~
;
a
.>,~ ~ Y ~
ru
~
4
9
a
a
~
#' ~
i
{i ~
G
9
~
r ~
2ryrtR
'G
~
"
'Y
d r
$
~ •$
~
~
~ ~
rc ~
'
~
~
~
~
~
z
.., T
nL~
~
'S
~
`
r
u ~ W
~. ~C
'~ -
~ _
- #'
a ~•
L
3. ~
_
- +
•'•
n E
~, ° ~~
~
c , ,
o ?S
~
rr
` ~
I`
c5 v
~
a ~
x
~ w S~
O G b G
~
vv'S5 h
3
< a u
_
U ~ S
N rl]
.°g
k
i 1
o N N
°s a i
N
e N~
~
` fh
a N
z U
z n v
.,`. l
. ; Y
. i!
& r N
r J
a I J
a N U
x U
~ r~
x G
~ ~
~ V <~
O M
.
_ ; r
; ~.i uu S CE u :} ,vv u
i~
S
u J~ Y
~5
:ri - L
r W