Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
[06a] APO TAC Meeting Update
MY of ST. JOSUPH MEETING DATE: November 19, 2009 Council Agenda Item � Q AGENDA ITEM: APO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting Update SUBMITTED BY: Randy Sabart, City Engineer BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: PREVIOUS COUNCII. ACTION: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The APO TAC met on Thursday, November 12, 2009, and reviewed the following items: 1. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project Prioritization & Scoring for Bike & Pedestrian, Expansion, Operations, & Preservation & Transit (Attachment B) APO staff and TAC members reviewed and discussed a first draft for a project scoringtranking sheet. Potential criteria for projects would include congestion relief/usage, safety/security benefit, system continuity, multi -modal accommodation/benefit, and land use accommodation/benefit. (see attached) The TAC continues to debate how best to evaluate /rank roadway projects with bicycle/pedestrian projects in a fair manner. It is anticipated that two scoring sheets will be developed. APO staff will incorporate the feedback from the meeting and work to refine the scoring sheets. 2. APO FY 20142015 Local Federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project Solicitation Packet (Attachment C) APO staff quickly reviewed the 2014/2015 TIP solicitation packet. Further review /discussion will occur at the December TAC meeting as the January 8, 2010 deadline approaches. In order to apply, a candidate project must be listed in the St. Cloud Metro Area 2035 Transportation Plan as a "constrained" project. In St. Joseph's case, the constrained project is the North Corridor — East project from Westwood Parkway (in St. Cloud) to County Road 133. The environmental study for this leg of the North Corridor is still in process. The following is a summary of the status of the North Corridor East study from the City's consultant: 1) The revised EA has been transmitted to Mn/DOT and FHWA for review and approval. 2) As soon as we receive approval from Mn/DOT and FHWA, the EA/EAW will be released for public and agency review, including a 30 -day comment period. 3) After the 30 -day comment period, we'll need to go through the process of preparing a Findings of Fact and Conclusion Document for the City Council. This document will be used by the City (through a resolution) to determine the need for an EIS. This step will close out the State review process. C:\Documents and Settings\sbialke\Local SettingATemporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook\J454UJD9\RCA 111209 TAC Meeting Report.doc 4) This resolution will be packaged along with the Findings of Fact and Conclusion as part of the EA Update/Request for FONSI to FHWA. 5) After FHWA signs off on the FONSI, the Federal environmental review process is complete for North Corridor -East. 3. St. Cloud Metropolitan Area 2010 -2013 TIP Project Update Information (Attachment D): APO staff asked that TAC Members review their local 2010 -2013 TIP projects and complete an update form for discussion at the December TAC meeting. An update form will be submitted for St. Joseph's North Corridor environmental studies. 4. Continued Discussion on FY 2011 Local Federal Priorities (Attachment E): APO staff reviewed a draft list of projects for soliciting FY 2011 federal appropriations (earmarks). The new list was drafted using the list of projects from FY 2010 and removing those projects that would be ineligible. A representative of Sherburne County, Luci Botzek, advised that the area needs to demonstrate strong support for Phase II of the Northstar rail. If the City were prepared to move forward with the North Corridor East project and deliver the project in 2011, the City could request placement of the project on the priority list for federal appropriations. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENTS: REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: Informational. Consider North Corridor East project candidacy for FY 2011 federal appropriations (earmark request). CADocuments and Settings\sbialkeTocal SettingsUemporary Internet Files \Content.OutlookU454UJD9\RCA 111209 TAC Meeting Report.doc ST. CLOUD AREA PLANNING ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:00 a.m. —11:00 a.m. Mn /DOT District 3 Offices Lewis South 3725 12 Street North St. Cloud AGENDA 9:00 a.m. 1. Consideration of TAC Minutes from October 8 & 13, 2009 (Attachment A). Requested Action: Approval. 9:02 a.m. 2. TIP Project Prioritization & Scoring for Bike & Pedestrian, Expansion, Operations, Preservation & Transit (Attachment B). Requested Action: Recommendation & Approval. 9:32 a.m. 3. APO FY 2014 -2015 Local Federal TIP Solicitation Packets (Attachment C). Requested Action: Discussion. 10:02 a.m. 4. St. Cloud Metropolitan Area 2010 -2013 TIP Project Update Information (Attachment D). Requested Action: Information. 10:17 a.m. 5. Discussion of FY 2011 Local Federal Priorities (Attachment E). Requested Action: Discussion. 10:47 a.m. 6. Other Business. • HSIP Summary • Northstar Update 11:00 a.m. 7. Adjournment. St. Cloud Area Planning Organization (320) 252 -7568 admin(cDstcloudaao.oro ATTACHMENT A St. Cloud Area Planning Organization TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES A regular meeting of the St. Cloud Area Planning Organization's (APO) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was held on Thursday, October 8 at 9:00 a.m. and an impromptu meeting Tuesday, October 13 at 2:00 p.m. Kirby Becker presided, with the following members present: Kirk Abraham City of Sauk Rapids Mitch Anderson Stearns County Bob Kozel Benton County Bill McCabe City of St. Augusta Anita Rasmussen City of Sartell Randy Sabart City of St. Joseph (SEH) Bill Schluenz City of Waite Park Jim Vierzba St. Cloud Area Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee Steve Voss Mn /DOT District 3 Also Present: Cindy Carlsson Mn /DOT CO Michelle Musser - Pooler St. Cloud APO Mark Nelson Mn /DOT CO Sue Siemers Mn /DOT District 3 CONSIDERATION OF TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES FROM AUGUST 6,2009: Mr. Schluenz moved. Ms. Rasmussen seconded to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried. APO 2010 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (UPWP): STAFF HOURS AVAILABLE FOR MEMBER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: Mr. Becker mentioned that during the summer APO staff put together a draft 2010 -2011 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). The overall objective of the UPWP is to provide for efficient work and financial management of the APO's planning program. He stated that the Program is organized according to twelve major functional categories. Within each category are sub - categories that describe specific work items to be undertaken, which provide for easy review and monitoring of the planning process. Activities are developed with specific objectives in mind. Mr. Becker mentioned that there are approximately 500 hours available for member technical assistance next year and noted the projects below as some samples. • Update Le Sauk Land Use Plan • Update Sauk Rapids Land Use Plan • Jurisdiction or school specific crosswalk inventory • Bicycle /pedestrian planning activities • Update Jurisdiction Transportation Plan • Site plan review(s) • Plat review Ms. Rasmussen explained that the City of Sartell has an orderly annexation agreement with LeSauk Township. She wondered who initiated that conversation regarding the development of a LeSauk Comprehensive Plan and questioned the benefit or spending of resources on a Township that will eventually be annexed into the City. Several TAC members agreed. Ms. Carlsson mentioned that whatever is decided that it really needs to be a project that has a metro -wide benefit. Participating in a City Land Use or Comprehensive Plan update would not be a qualifying federal reimbursable activity. Ms. Rasmussen noted that the Joint Planning District is looking at LEED and alternative transportation and that perhaps could be an activity for staff to be more involved. 0 drive / Administrative /Committees TAC/TAC Minutes 10.08.09 Mr. Becker asked TAC members to go back and discuss with their jurisdictions and either call or email with suggestions. UPDATE ON STATEWIDE & DISTRICT 3 PLAN DEVELOPMENTS: Mr. Nelson & Mr. Voss, both with Mn /DOT presented information of both Plans. Mr. Nelson focused on the following information for the Statewide Policy Plan: • Purpose • Approach & Guiding Principals • Challenges • Opportunities • Mn /DOT's Planning & Programming Process • Plan Policy Areas • Strategies & Performance Measures • Investment Needs • Expected Outcomes Mr. Voss highlighted the Mn /DOT District 3 20 -Year Highway Investment Plan. Below are some key figures that were mentioned. • District needs are $5.9 billion (1/3 of the total performance based needs in Greater MN) • Mobility accounts for the single largest performance -based need • District 3 accounts for 95% of the total mobility needs in Greater Minnesota • $1.4 billion is needed for preservation • $804 million is needed for safety CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON 2035 ST. CLOUD METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN: INVESTMENT OPTIONS FOR BIKE /PEDESTRIAN, EXPANSION, OPERATIONS, PRESERVATION, SAFETY & TRANSIT (Oct 8th & 13`h meetings): Mr. Becker provided that TAC with a revised funding scenario table. He mentioned that the $383,000 identified in the table for HSIP set -a -side should be looked at as a sliding number because even though the APO contributes the area may not receive 100% back. The item was then opened for discussion with some of the major comments summarized below: • Mr. Sabart asked if a project included a multi -modal element, would the expansion and multi -modal areas both be tapped. • Mr. Kozel explained that his issue is an ever shrinking amount of money and that sub targets stretch the money out even farther. Sub - targets eliminate any ability to be flexible. He said that when a roadway is constructed, it should not be viewed as a one mode project. Roads are currently planned and designed as a multi -modal facility. • Mr. Schluenz said that larger road projects will always rise to the top even with sub - targets and smaller projects will never get to the top or be able to compete. • Ms. Siemers said that based past history has proved that bus funding has been very limited and in the future transit is going to need significant assistance. • Ms. Rasmussen stated she preferred scenario A for the most flexibility but could support scenario B. She wants to preserve as much money as possible for preservation while still being multi - modal. • Ms. Carlsson suggested having a breakdown if it is left flexible, it will need to be defined. All modes need to be funded. She mentioned that the APO has made huge progress and applauds. • Mr. Voss suggested identifying a time period within the scenario structure. You're going to need to be open to buses and trails when they are submitted. • Mr. Anderson said that the federal money has already been watered down to half and that the remaining 50% should go for preservation because of the need. He also mentioned that there is a big parallel between locals and Mn /DOT and that outstate Mn /DOT, specifically District 3, does not spend any of their money on enhancement projects. It doesn't seem fair that local jurisdictions are required to use their federal money for preserving trails while Mn /DOT is not (required). • Mr. Becker said that as a MPO it would be short- sighted if we did not look at all modes. Ms. Rasmussen moved. Mr. Schluenz seconded to approve scenario B (50% expansion, 40% M &O, 10% multi - modal). Mr. Voss & Mr. Sabart abstained and motioned failed. 0 drive / Administrative /Committees/TAC/TAC Minutes 10.08.09 Because of time constraints, Mr. Becker said that the TAC would have a special impromptu meeting next week to discuss this specific issue to finalize a recommendation. The meeting will be Tuesday, October 13th at 2 p.m. at the APO office. At the Tuesday, October 13th impromptu TAC meeting similar discussion as mentioned above took place. Mr. Anderson moved. Mr. Kozel seconded to approve a hybrid scenario with 50% expansion & 50% preservation. Motioned failed. Mr. Schluenz moved. Ms. Rasmussen seconded to approve a hybrid scenario of 50% expansion & 50% preservation but with the inclusion of a 5 -year, 10% target for bike /pedestrian and transit capital. Motion passed. CONTINUED BRAINSTORM ON IDEAS FOR PROJECT PRIORITIZATION & SCORING FOR BIKE /PEDESTRIAN, EXPANSION, OPERATIONS, PRESERVATION, SAFETY & TRANSIT: Mr. Becker mentioned that some research was handed out at the last TAC meeting for members to take back and review. He reviewed the ten criteria that were pulled from the research in the sample regional score sheet. The TAC went through each criterion to determine if it was a viable criterion to use for a new regional significance score sheet for future TIP submittals. After significant discussion the TAC narrowed down the ten criteria to five: congestion relief /usage, safety benefit, system continuity, multi -modal accommodation /benefit, and land use accommodation /benefit. The TAC also agreed to include three qualitative assessment areas: project readiness, metro vision /regional significance /local support, and social /environmental /economic benefit. The TAC liked the idea of having both quantitative and qualitative scoring /assessment areas, especially for projects that may not score well using the ATP technical scoring applications, yet are considered locally to be a high regional significant project. Mr. Becker mentioned that he would revise the attachment and further discussion on scoring criteria can take place at the next TAC meeting in November. PRESENTATION ON DRAFT 2035 ST. CLOUD METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN: Mr. Becker briefly summarized the main elements of the 2035 Transportation Plan, which included policies, land use, management and operations, financial, roadway transportation, and non - motorized transportation. The St. Cloud Area Planning Organization (APO) has been updating its long -range transportation plan since early 2008 and is expected to be complete by the end of the year. The Plan is required to be updated at least every four years for the St. Cloud Metro Area to continue to receive federal transportation funding. It was developed with a primary focus on roadway infrastructure yet includes a more balanced multi -modal financial approach. Several new chapters focusing on policies and management & operations have been added and existing chapters have been updated with new information. He mentioned that there will be an open house and public meeting on Thursday, October 22, 2009 at Waite Park City Hall from 5 -6 p.m. (open house) and 7 -8 p.m. (public meeting). OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Becker handed out a list of the tentative 2010 APO TAC meetings dates and mentioned that the 2009 TRLF applications are dues tomorrow (Friday, October 9, 2009) ADLOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at approximately 11:50 p.m. 0 drive / Administrative /Committees/TAC/TAC Minutes 10.08.09 APO Regional Significance TIP Scoring by Project Type (Sample Alternative) Maximum 100 pts. Project Type Potential Criteria System Expansion Congestion Relief/ Usage (20 pts.) Safety Benefit (20 pts.) System Continuity (20 pts.) Multi -Modal Accomodation/ Benefit (20 pts.) Land Use Accomodation/ Benefit (20 pts.) System Preservation Bicycle & Pedestrian Transit Capital Operational Improvements Studies Quantitative Scoring Congestion Relief /Usage: Safety/Security Benefit: Accomodates an area where a fatality or fatalities have occurred. 20 pts. Accomodates an area where a personal injury or injuries have occurred. 12 pts. Accomodates an area where non -fatal or non -injury crashes have occurred. 5 pts. No crashes have occurred. 0 pts. System Continuity: Multi -Modal Accommodation /Benefit: Land Use Accomodation /Benefit: Cost Effectiveness: Qualitative Assessment - Level of Qualitative Strength (weak to strong) Project Readiness (Development) Explain the steps that have been taken to assure delivery of project within the timeframe of requested federal money. Metro Vision /Regional Significance /Local Support Explain how the project meets the overall metro vision, its' regional significance and local plans (APO, Mn /DOT D3, city /county, etc.) the project is included. Social, Environmental & Economic Benefit Explain how the project improves air quality, water quality, noise, etc., avoids environmental senisitve areas, provides benefits or reduces burden to environmental justice populations, and improves community livability and quality of life. NOTE: A TAC sub- committee will be meeting Monday, November 9 and an updated scoring sheet will provided at the TAC meeting ATTACHMENT B Ideas to think about ? ?? Overall system VHTNMT /LOS? Travel time reductions or capacity increases? Facility LOS? Impact on Safety? Crash Statistics? Connection of total system? Filling of system gaps? Improved multi -modal connections? Improved designs (i.e complete streets)? Accommodates more than one mode? Promotion of projects serving increased densities? Existing vs planned vs future development? Users vs investment? Support of economic vitality? Global competitiveness, productivity & efficiency? .uri� ATTACHMENT C Area Planning Organization 1040 Count) Read 4, St. Cloud, MN SG303- tK�4.i (320) 2;2 --;68 • (320) 252 -0�,5, (FAX) • E- mail:admiti @stcloudapo.org • wwa'.stcloudapo.org November 1, 2009 MEMORANDUM TO: St. Cloud Area Transportation Stakeholders (i.e. Metro jurisdictions & Metro Bus) FROM: Kirby Becker, Senior Transportation Planner SUBJECT: St. Cloud APO FY 2014 & 2015 - Federal Transportation Funding Project Solicitation Notice The St. Cloud Area Planning Organization (APO) is presently soliciting FY 2014 & 2015 candidate federal projects to establish a five year (FY 2011 -2015) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP is a prioritized list of St. Cloud Metropolitan Area transportation projects that is recommended to the Central Minnesota Area Transportation Partnership (ATP) for inclusion in the Area Transportation Improvement Program (ATIP). The ATIP is a prioritized list of projects from a twelve county area of Central Minnesota that the ATP recommends for inclusion in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Once in the STIP, projects become eligible for federal transportation funding. Eligible project categories include bicycle /pedestrian, road and bridge expansion /preservation, operational improvements, project development studies, right -of -way, safety and transit capital. Projects must meet minimum (ATP) eligibility criteria and be identified as a St. Cloud Metro Area 2035 constrained project (Attachment P, pg. 1 or pg. 2: #'s 1 -13), when applicable. Keep in mind it was recently approved that fifty percent ($950,000) of the APO's annual federal money would be for expansion and fifty percent ($950,000) for preservation projects. A 5 -year, ten percent investment target for bike /pedestrian and transit capital was also approved. Applicants wishing to submit a project for any of the above categories are required to follow the application procedures identified in the attachments. All applicants must ensure that their project meets the qualifying criteria specified in Attachment J. Applicants must also ensure that they address any special criteria and complete the appropriate application materials pertaining to their proposed project. The following attachments provide necessary background information and application materials pertaining to this solicitation. The bold attachments are those that need to be completed for each application. Attachment A: Map of St. Cloud APO TIP Solicitation Area Attachment B: APO FY 2011 -15 TIP Development Schedule Attachment C: APO FY 2014 & 2015 Federal Transportation Project Checklist Attachment D: Local Match Resolution Attachment E: Multi- Jurisdictional Project Support Resolution Attachment F: Public Participation Policy for TIP Project Submittals Attachment G: Public Participation Certification Resolution Attachment H: Federal Cost Increase Policy Attachment I: District 3 ATP Management of Federal Projects Policy Attachment J: Qualifying Project Criteria Attachment K: Project Description Requirements Attachment L: Federal Road, Bridge & Preservation Technical Scoring Worksheets Attachment M: Safety Project Application Information Attachment W. Transportation Enhancement Application Information Attachment O: Right -of -Way & Project Development Application Rules Attachment P: Map of St. Cloud Metro Area 2035 financially constrained projects & accompanying project table. (Table shows constrained and constrained illustrative projects but only #'s 1 -13 are eligible) Completed applications for all project types must be received by the APO no later than Friday, January 8, 2010. Applications received after this deadline will not be considered for funding. Please use the appropriate worksheet or application materials to score your project and provide the APO with a hardcopy of your entire project submittal. Contact me if you have questions regarding this solicitation or enclosed attachments. Thank you, Kirby Becker Senior Transportation Planner Attachment B CENTRAL MINNESOTA AREA TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP 2011 - 2014 STIP DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE October 15, 2009 TIMELINE ACTIVITY AGENT October 2009 Solicit enhancement project proposals (pre - application) Project Proposers October 2009 Solicit Highway Safety Improvement Program projects OTST October 15, 2009 Establish ATIP development process /guidelines ATP — St. Cloud October 19, 2009 — January 15, 2010 ^ t R Solicit locally- sponsored candidate road, bridge, public transit and safety candidate projects APO Project Proposers October 30, 2009 Hold workshop with potential enhancement project applicants i D3 December 2009 Deadline for Highway Safety Improvement Program Projects OTST January 2010 Conduct review of transit vehicle capital candidates Transit Committee Project Proposers January 15, 2010 Deadline for locally- sponsored road, bridge, enhancement, transit and safety candidates January 28, 2010 Conduct preliminary review of project submittals ATP — Baxter February 1, 2010 Submit Mn /DOT candidate projects to regions for review and comment D3 February 2010 Review, rank and develop list of regional transportation priorities D3, RDCs, APO March 10, 2010 Merge regional priorities /develop Draft ATIP ATIP Development Committee � ATP — Baxter April 8, 2010 Review, modify and approve Draft ATIP April 15, 2010 Submit ATP's approved Draft ATIP to Mn /DOT Office of Investment Management (OIM) D3 May 2010 Develop Draft STIP OIM ATP, D3, RDCs, APO May -June 2010 Conduct public review and comment of Draft STIP June 24, 2010 Review and comment on Draft STIP ATP — St. Cloud D3 June 30, 2010 Submit comments regarding Draft STIP to 01 August- September 2010 Approves Draft STIP and submits to FHWA/FTA Mn /DOT September- October 2010 Makes finding and accepts for funding Approves STIP I FHWA/FTA October - November 2010 � I FHWA/FTA Stearns County oil St. Joseph Township Rockville A IV • 1, s St. Augusta L Attachment A St. Cloud APO TIP Solicitation Area Benton County Sherburne County ,file/ ,file/ Amid At s Area Planning Organization 1040 County Road 4. St. Cloud, MN 56303-( H-1) (320) 252 -7568 • (320) 252 -655- (FAX) - E -mail: admin@stcloudapo.org • www.stcloudapo.org November 1, 2009 MEMORANDUM TO: St. Cloud Area Transportation Stakeholders (i.e. Metro jurisdictions & Metro Bus) FROM: Kirby Becker, Senior Transportation Planner SUBJECT: St. Cloud APO 2011 -2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Schedule November 6, 2009 Federal -aid project solicitation packets emailed & mailed to agencies /jurisdictions within APO June 11, 2010 APO sends final TIP Document to Mn /DOT for inclusion in STIP. July- September 2010 Mn /DOT approves draft STIP and submits to FHWA. October -Nov. 2010 FHWA approves STIP. Planning Area. December 3, 2009 APO TAC meeting held to discuss status of FY 2010 - FY 2013 programmed projects & FY 2014/2015 solicitation packets. January 8, 2010 FY 2014 & 2015 Project Applications Due at APO Offices. January 28, 2010 ATP preliminary review of project submittals & project applications presented to APO Policy Board. February 4, 2010 TAC recommends draft APO project prioritization to APO Executive Board; reviews and comments on Mn /DOT proposed projects. February 11, 2010 APO Executive Board recommends draft prioritized project list to APO Policy Board; reviews and comments on Mn /DOT proposed projects. February 15 -19, 2010 Public meeting notice published for draft APO project prioritization and Mn /DOT proposed projects. February 25, 2010 APO Policy Board holds public meeting on draft APO project prioritization and Mn /DOT proposed projects to all interested stakeholders (i.e. local jurisdictions, state, federal, environmental, etc.). Final project prioritization is approved. March 10, 2010 ATIP Development Committee merges regional priorities and develops draft ATIP. April 8, 2010 District 3 ATP reviews, modifies and approves ATIP. April 16, 2010 Draft St. Cloud Metro Area TIP Document sent to Mn /DOT and MPCA for review and comment. May 3 -7, 2010 Notice of TIP document public information and review meeting and 30 -day comment period published. May 27, 2010 APO Policy Board holds public meeting on draft TIP document. TIP document is approved subject to minor technical corrections. June 10, 2010 APO Executive Board approves final TIP document. June 11, 2010 APO sends final TIP Document to Mn /DOT for inclusion in STIP. July- September 2010 Mn /DOT approves draft STIP and submits to FHWA. October -Nov. 2010 FHWA approves STIP. Attachment C VIYAll t, YOM area Planning Organization 1040 Count• Read 4, St. Cloud, MN 56303 -0643 (320) 252 -7566 • (320) 252.655— (FAX) • l mail:adminCa'stcloudapo.org • www.stcloudapo.org FY 2014 -2015 APO Federal Bridge & Road Transportation Project Checklist Project applications must completely address all checklist items prior to the January 2010 submittal deadline to be eligible Minimum ADT Project meets minimum ADT requirements. (2,000 existing urban, 3,000 non - existing urban) (200 existing rural, 400 non - existing rural) Minimum Functional Classification Project is identified on the Mn /DOT Functional Classification Map and has the minimum functional classification. (urban projects: collector or above) (rural projects: minor collector or above) Permanent Improvement Project is a permanent improvement. Minimum Federal Funds Requested The minimum $200,000 federal funding amount is being requested. (Minimum $50,000 for right -of -way or project development studies) Capital Improvement Program The project is included in an adopted City or County Capital Improvement Program. APO Transportation Plan & submitting jurisdictions Comprehensive/Transportation Plan The project is consistent with the APO 2035 Transportation Plan & submitting jurisdiction Comprehensive or Transportation Plan. Assured Coordination with all Jurisdictions A letter or resolution of support for the project has been obtained from other roadway jurisdictions directly impacted by the project (sample resolution attached). Assured Local Match by Applicant A resolution from the implementing agency has been approved assuring that the necessary local matching funds will be provided for the project (sample resolution attached). Movement of People and Goods The project provides for or improves the movement of people and goods. 20 -Year ADT St. Cloud APO 20 year forecasted ADT has been used in the Project Ranking Worksheet. Project Cost Breakdown Federal, local and total construction costs are itemized in the project description text. Project Location Map A project location map has been prepared. Public Involvement A resolution has been adopted by the implementing agency documenting that a specific public meeting has been held for the project or plan that includes the project (optional — sample resolution attached) Attachment D (fill in Jurisdiction) Resolution Number: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AVAILABILITY OF LOCAL MATCH AND OTHER LOCAL COSTS FOR FY 2014 & 2015 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECT SUBMITTAL TO THE ST. CLOUD AREA PLANNING ORGANIZATION (fill in project name and termini) WHEREAS; federal formula funding authorized within the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA -LU) has been apportioned by the United States Congress to Minnesota for State and local transportation needs; and WHEREAS; the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) has distributed these federal funds to eight (8) Area Transportation Partnerships (ATPs) within Minnesota; and WHEREAS; the District 3 ATP receives 10.2 percent of this federal formula funding, which is distributed 75 percent to Mn /DOT District 3 and 25 percent to local units of government within District 3; and WHEREAS; the St. Cloud Area Planning Organization (APO) receives 20.53% of the District 3 ATP local government share for annual programming within the APO Planning Area; and WHEREAS; the (fill in jurisdiction name) has recognized the need for improvements to (fill in project name and termini) by including this project in its currently held valid Capital Improvement Program, and intends to submit this project to the APO as a candidate for FY 2014 & 2015 federal funding; and WHEREAS; federal transportation projects can compete through the APO's funding process for up to eighty (80) percent of eligible federal costs; and WHEREAS; local jurisdictions submitting projects to the APO must guarantee that twenty (20) percent local matching funds, at a minimum, will be available for eligible federal costs; and WHEREAS; it is recognized that in order to leverage more federal transportation projects, and fully utilize the APO's annual allocation of federal funding, the APO Board may request that a local match in excess of this twenty (20) percent minimum be guaranteed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the (fill in jurisdiction) guarantees that twenty (20) percent local matching funds, at a minimum, will be available for eligible federal costs for (fill in project name and termini); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the (fill in jurisdiction) also guarantees the availability of local funding for all federally non - eligible costs of this project. ATTEST: Title Date Attachment E (Fill in Supporting Road Authority) Resolution Number: RESOLUTION OF MULTI - JURISDICTIONAL SUPPORT FOR FOR FY 2014 & 2015 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECT SUBMITTAL TO THE ST. CLOUD AREA PLANNING ORGANIZATION: (fill in project name and termini) (fill in project proposer) WHEREAS; federal formula funding authorized within the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA -LU) has been apportioned by the United States Congress to Minnesota for State and local transportation needs; and WHEREAS; the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) has distributed these federal funds to eight (8) Area Transportation Partnerships (ATPs) within Minnesota; and WHEREAS; the District 3 ATP receives 10.2 percent of this federal formula funding, which is distributed 75 percent to Mn /DOT District 3 and 25 percent to local units of government within District 3; and WHEREAS; the St. Cloud Area Planning Organization (APO) receives 20.53% of the District 3 ATP local government share for annual programming within the APO Planning Area; and WHEREAS; the (fill in jurisdiction name) has recognized the need for improvements to (fill in project name and termini) by including this project in its currently held valid Capital Improvement Program, and intends to submit this project to the APO as a candidate for FY 2014 & 2015 federal funding; and WHEREAS; a portion of (fill in project name) lies within the jurisdiction of (fill in supporting road authority). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the (fill in supporting road authority) hereby supports the APO federal funding application for (fill in project name and termini) submitted by (fill in project proposer) . ATTEST: Title Date Attachment F Jaiir� � /oad Area Planning Organization 1040 County Road 4, St. Cloud, MN 56303 -0643 (320) 252 -'S6i3 • (320) 252 -6557 (FAX) • E -mail: adminCn�s nwwstcloudapo.org November 1, 2009 MEMORANDUM TO: St. Cloud Area Transportation Stakeholders (i.e. Metro jurisdictions & Metro Bus) FROM: Kirby Becker, Senior Transportation Planner SUBJECT: APO Public Participation Policy for TIP Project Submittals An implementing agency should ask several questions prior to submitting a project for federal funding. It is important to identify (potentially controversial) projects early. These projects require additional, early public participation that would help in avoiding project delays in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The implementing agency should ask these six questions prior to project submittal: 1. Will the proposed project expand the number of through traffic lanes? 2. Will the proposed project require purchase of right -of -way? 3. Will adjacent property owners be assessed for a portion of the project? 4. Will the project expand the roadway curb -to -curb width by more than six feet? 5. Will the project result in new parking restrictions? 6. Are there other reasons why the project may be controversial? A "yes" answer to any of the six questions should lead to a public participation meeting rip or to a project being submitted for federal funding. This allows property owners and other stakeholders the opportunity for specific involvement in the full scope of proposed improvements. After the meeting has been held, a resolution should be passed by the governing agency providing confirmation that a project specific public meeting has been held. A "no" answer to all six questions would indicate that the project is probably not controversial, and therefore, will require minimal public participation. A resolution should also be passed by the governing agency if this is the finding. It is important to note that these are guidelines and are not required of project applicants. However, agencies and jurisdictions submitting public participation resolutions with their applications will be given additional project ranking points. Attachment G (fill in Jurisdiction) Resolution Number: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR A PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE ST. CLOUD AREA PLANNING ORGANIZATION FOR FY 2014 & 2015 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING (fill in project name and termini) WHEREAS; federal formula funding authorized within the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA -LU) has been apportioned by the United States Congress to Minnesota for State and local transportation needs; and WHEREAS; the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) has distributed these federal funds to eight (8) Area Transportation Partnerships (ATPs) within Minnesota; and WHEREAS; the District 3 ATP receives 10.2 percent of this federal formula funding, which is distributed 75 percent to Mn /DOT District 3 and 25 percent to local units of government within District 3; and WHEREAS; the St. Cloud Area Planning Organization (APO) receives 20.53% of the District 3 ATP local government share for annual programming within the APO Planning Area; and WHEREAS; the (fill in jurisdiction name) has recognized the need for improvements to (fill in project name and termini) by including this project in its currently held valid Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS; the (fill in jurisdiction name) intends to submit (fill in project name and termini) to the APO as a candidate project to compete for FY 2014 & 2015 federal funding; and WHEREAS; the APO encourages federal project proposers to hold a Public Participation Meeting explaining their proposed project to elected officials, property owners and the general public in order to address project issues early -on in the project development process; and WHEREAS; the lack of specific public involvement and discussion of project issues prior to project submittal to the APO can result in project delays and cost overruns that negatively impact other planned and programmed federal transportation projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the (fill in jurisdiction) certifies that property owners and other stakeholders affected by the proposed (fill in project name and termini) were afforded an opportunity for specific involvement in the full scope of this proposed improvement before its submittal to the APO for competitive FY 2014 & 2015 federal funding. ATTEST: Title Date Attachment H ADTAII L %vud � � Area Planning 1040 County Road 4, St. (:loud, MN 56303 -MA3 (320) 252 -7568 • (320) 252 -6557 (FAX) • F. -mail: adminCstrlc >udapc).org • svwvvv.stcloudapo.org ST. CLOUD APO FEDERAL COST INCREASE POLICY (Adopted July 25, 2002) Federal Cost Increases will be Considered by the APO Subject To The Following* • Cost increases must be at least $100,000, not to exceed 15 % of the originally programmed federal funding amount. • No more than 10 percent of the APO federal funding target can be used in any given year for cost increases. * Cost increase requests due to a change in project scope cannot be considered, per District 3 ATP policy. * Cost increase requests must be programmed prior to project letting, per District 3 ATP policy. ' To meet the minimum $100,000 threshold, the original programmed federal amount must be at least $666,670 ($666,670 x .15 % = $100,000). ' Eligible federal cost increase requests will be prioritized with other federal project submittals for funding in the last year of the APO's TIP. Attachment I &MIl/ /YUUI% Area Planning Organizati'600 1040 County Road . , St. Cloud, MN 56303 -0643 (320) 252 -7568 - (320) 252 -6557 (FAX) - E-mail: admiii@stcloudapo.org • www.stcloudapo.org November 1, 2009 MEMORANDUM TO: St. Cloud Area Transportation Stakeholders (i.e. Metro jurisdictions & Metro Bus) FROM: Kirby Becker, Senior Transportation Planner SUBJECT: District 3 ATP Policies Regarding Management of Federal Projects PROJECT MANAGEMENT POLICIES • The project development process should be initiated as soon as possible after final State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) approval. • Local jurisdictions should provide an annual update to their region (i.e. APO) and the District 3 State Aid Engineer regarding the project development status of their programmed projects. (This will be done by the APO at the December 3`d TAC meeting). • Local jurisdictions should provide cost and project delivery updates on programmed projects to their region and the District 3 State Aid Engineer during the annual project solicitation period (This will be done by the APO at the December 3rd TAC meeting). PROJECT ADVANCEMENT POLICY • When selecting projects to advance to compensate for project delays, the ATP's first priority shall be to maintain a seventy -five (75) percent share to Mn /DOT District 3 and a twenty -five (25) percent share to District 3 local jurisdictions. PROJECT DEFERRAL POLICIES • A local project may be granted a maximum of two (2) deferrals from its original program year o The District 3 State Aid Engineer may grant the request, provided that the deferral will not adversely affect other projects in the Area Transportation Improvement Program (ATIP). o If granting the request will adversely affect other projects in the ATIP, the ATP shall consider the request. • A local project requiring a third (3rd) deferral from its original program year shall be removed from the ATIP. The lead agency for the project will be directed by the ATP to utilize an alternative funding source, or compete again for funding. • Regions with a local project that has been removed from the ATIP because of project delivery failures or eligibility shall be granted the first right of refusal for programming new projects with the unexpended funding. COST OVERRUN POLICY • A region can commit their future federal funding to cover cost overruns of previously programmed local projects as long as there is no change to the original project scope. If a region agrees to such an increase, the local project sponsor must agree to upfront the cost of the overrun and be reimbursed for the amount programmed by the region in the year specified. COST UNDERRUN POLICY • If a locally sponsored federal project requires less funding than programmed, the remaining federal funding shall be allocated as follows: • First, to a local project within the region where the under -run occurred; • Second, to a local project anywhere within the District 3 ATP; • Third, to a Mn /DOT project within District 3, with Mn /DOT reimbursing local jurisdictions in the following fiscal year. Attachment J QUALIFYING CRITERIA Qualify criteria are to be used by the potential proposers and the APO to screen projects prior to going through project ranking and selection. This screening process is designed to assist applicants in determining whether their proposed transportation project is eligible to receive federal funds. Applicants must meet all applicable qualifying criteria prior to the submission of their application. Applications received that do not meet these criteria will not be considered for federal transportation funding. Applicants are encouraged to contact their county or city engineer or the APO should they have questions concerning project eligibility or require assistance in completing their application. Nine qualifying criteria have been developed by the ATP /APO to allow applicants to pre- screen their projects. Eligible project categories within the APO Area include: roadway construction, bridge construction, safety, transit, roadway project development studies and transportation enhancements. Refer to Figure 1 to determine the qualifying criteria pertaining to your project. Definitions of qualifying criteria items are as follows: 1) Existing ADT -This is the average daily traffic (ADT) computed for the most recent count for the roadway. Estimated ADT is used for non - existent roadways. 2) Minimum Functional Class - This is the minimum functional classification for a roadway in order for it to receive federal funds. 3) Permanent Improvement - Proposed project must be a permanent improvement. The acquisition of buses is a capital improvement and considered a permanent improvement. 4) Minimum Federal Fund Request - This is the minimum amount of federal funds that may be requested forthe project. Projects receiving federal funding require extensive amounts of documentation and investigation during project development. Therefore, projects should be of a certain magnitude to effectively optimize the use of federal funds. Otherwise, the administration and development costs may exceed the benefit of the federal funds that are being requested for the project. 5) Proiect in Existing Program - Project must be included in an existing Capital Improvement Program (CIP) of a county, city, or some other government unit/agency. This is to ensure the proposed project is consistent with local and /or state planning processes. There must be an official action approving the proposed project by the local unit of government. 6) Project Consistent with APO 2030 Financially Constrained Roadway Plan - Project must be consistent with the St. Cloud Metropolitan Area Financially Constrained 2035 Roadway Plan, pertinent State long -range plans, and any corridor plans or studies prepared by the APO. 7) Assured Coordination within all Jurisdictions - Applications involving projects that cross multiple local government units must be accompanied by a letter and /or official action indicating all affected local units of government are in agreement with the concept of the proposed project. This is to make sure that projects have the support of the local units of government, which potentially have a veto power over that project. 8) Assured Local Match Fundinq Availability - Applicant must document to the APO they have secured the necessary local match for their project before receiving federal funds. The local match is a minimum of 20 percent of the total project cost for which federal funds are being requested unless otherwise noted in Figure 1. Since it is extremely important that federal funds are utilized on all selected projects, applicants must assure the APO of their commitment to provide local matching funds. Without this commitment, no federal funds will be released to the applicant. 9) Movement of People Goods Services - Project must provide for or improve the movement of people goods and services. This is not required under enhancement projects. Items for which "N.A." appears in Figure 1 means the minimum requirement does not apply. p: \nunn1ran \planning \STIP \qualcrit L U f0 E f0 O c9 a) O a a) E U A) 0 a m w 0 N O m 0 m E N m () 0 a) a) O_ O N N a) a) m O L U m °O E U Ln O 69 of cc w > m O N N a) 7 3 E N � C l6 U N U n� Q E 7 o E o o E O Z,w N N v Co N ,Z5 o 0 n N C a) o E N 7 o) Q E T a) y E 7 a O c N E E ca 7 E > C_ m E L ; w N 0 U N N N X d a) N •o c w a U) 2 O .0 O N N `m a a) a) w a) 7 a) a) c O O) a) O N U a) 0 n T Co N T CL N 7 U C t O U a) a N Mn (n E a) 01 O d a) cn () L O T z a) 0) C U � C O � 0 O1a c~ �Q c w � L � T a) � m o a) O N � C Q) U m d � O a3 N a) � O > d O` >' a m � co N C 0 N O C U O C O N '0 0) W- 3 C a) L O) y L L � N C13 7 O E c 'o m N D_ 16 a o� n= CL af a) af w 2 a0i E O @ Q_ N N 0 C a7 C, o () c`9 � T Y L Mn co L a) N O) J U W 7 F- LU aLL .> Q U) C N c+) W U� Qw Q Q N YO N N N N Q _ 2 Z Z >- oc) } } } } Z z W F zQ Q N Y N N N Cl) N F m � � °o U 4) m m LL O j aN) aa)) aa)) O U U N Y K d Lo W W °000 UQ } °n } } } } } a z � c �_ m {j. W U LO N U cu 0 N } Y � N } N } N } N } N } W a7 LZL F— D ly U) O O_ U N Y N N N N N Z X C) O z O U N �y LL J QQ2' H O O U O N p O >- D X N N } () } (1) } N } a) } a) a w U V ) Q Q N O n/ LL w O °O au) m Y O m 0 m m m F- 0 z Cl, o r r r r r r Ch z U z Q z Z o U N Y N N N N N im w N O U N C a7 CL N (D O c U_ Z m _ Q O0) U) Q d' N 7 a) E O) O L O W @ C a) J L 7 L O U U m aa)) C Li O n 3 C 0 d U Z c O o 0 c0 m C c a) as C m m } c E (D N w @ a ll J Q 7 LL — C a) LL , W N O O N U O U J >' O C Q 01 C E 7 y C a) E 7 C U U U o N U an o= a) L d E O E E E a) a) 7 7.`—_° a) N C C O O N •- N a7 >O w a LL a a� ¢Q N M V O L U f0 E f0 O c9 a) O a a) E U A) 0 a m w 0 N O m 0 m E N m () 0 a) a) O_ O N N a) a) m O L U m °O E U Ln O 69 of cc w > m O N N a) 7 3 E N � C l6 U N U n� Q E 7 o E o o E O Z,w N N v Co N ,Z5 o 0 n N C a) o E N 7 o) Q E T a) y E 7 a O c N E E ca 7 E > C_ m E L ; w N 0 U N N N X d a) N •o c w a U) 2 O .0 O N N `m a a) a) w a) 7 a) a) c O O) a) O N U a) 0 n T Co N T CL N 7 U C t O U a) a N Mn (n E a) 01 O d a) cn () L O T z a) 0) C U � C O � 0 O1a c~ �Q c w � L � T a) � m o a) O N � C Q) U m d � O a3 N a) � O > d O` >' a m � co N C 0 N O C U O C O N '0 0) W- 3 C a) L O) y L L � N C13 7 O E c 'o m N D_ 16 a o� n= CL af a) af w 2 a0i E O @ Q_ N N 0 C a7 C, o () c`9 � T Y L Mn co L a) N O) J U W 7 F- LU aLL .> Q U) C N c+) RECOMMENDATIONS ON ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES FOR FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT FEDERAL laws and regulations are a basis for decision making as to what activities federal funds should be utilized for. States have the ability to establish more stringent rules. For all of the following discussion on how to utilize federal funds it should be understood that there are exceptions to every rule. Special funding sources (demonstration projects, "non- formula" funds) may include funding for activities that normally are not federally funded. Right of Way (R/W): Mn /DOT discourages ATPs from considering these for reimbursement as it feels there are more economical and optimal uses of SAFETEA -LU funds. An exception to this policy pertains to the enhancement provision that allows acquisition of easements, abandoned railroad corridors and scenic and historic sites. However, the partnership has adopted a policy that allows each region to determine if R/W is eligible for federal funding. Preliminary and Final Design Engineering: Although eligible for federal funding, these activities are not considered economical uses of SAFETEA -LU funds. Therefore, the ATP has adopted a policy excluding these activities from being eligible for federal reimbursement. Construction Engineering: This activity is not eligible for federal reimbursement under State Aid. Mn /DOT collects reimbursement for contract administration on trunk highway projects. This is being discussed at top management levels within Mn /DOT. Plan Development/Corridor Preservation: Corridor preservation is recognized under SAFETEA -LU as an eligible activity for federal funding. However, the Partnership has adopted a policy that allows each Region to determine if Project Develop ment/Corridor Preservation activities are eligible. Supplemental Agreements and Cost Overruns: The federal law stipulates that once the percentage of participation is established for a project, that percentage is to be carried through the life of the project. The Mn /DOT District Offices are responsible for managing their regional portion of the STIP. Mn /DOT District 3, in consultation with the ATP, has established policies for managing supplemental agreements and cost overrun projects in its portion of the STIP. Projects affected by these policies will be reviewed on a case -by -case basis. However, recipients of SAFETEA -LU funding are reminded that the ATP is responsible for maintaining a fiscally - constrained transportation program, and changes in project scope and costs can adversely impact the entire program. FIGURE 2 Federal Reimbursement Policies for Miscellaneous Activities Item Yes No Right -of -Way APO State Project Development/Final Design Engineering APO State Construction Engineering State APO Supplemental Agreements State APO Cost Overruns State/ APO Corridor Preservation /Official Mapping APO State Attachment K PROJECT DESCRIPTION Please provide a brief description of your proposed project. Include essential information about the project's purpose, location /termini, and cost; and the anticipated advantages /benefits to be derived from the proposed improvements. The project description should not exceed one page in length. Applicants should further demonstrate the relationship and consistency of the project with regional and local comprehensive and transportation plans /goals; the degree to which the project is regionally significant; and relevant public involvement activities that have been performed and /or are proposed pursuant to the project's development. &Vo�ti ne Attachment 0 l Area Planning Organization Cy 1040 County Road t, St. Cloud, MN 56303 -0643 (320) 252 -7568 • (320) 252 -655, (PAX) • E -mail: admin@stcloudapo.org • wwv►stcloudapo.org November 1, 2009 MEMORANDUM TO: St. Cloud Area Transportation Stakeholders (i.e. Metro jurisdictions & Metro Bus) FROM: Kirby Becker, Senior Transportation Planner SUBJECT: Right of Way (ROW) and Project Development Study Application and Rules GENERAL ELIGIBILITY & Q&A: Project development studies and ROW submittals must be prioritized and successfully compete for federal funding within the APO's fiscally constrained TIP, then be included in the ATP's Area TIP and the STIP. Who may apply? • Any State Aid eligible city, county, or tribal government may apply. Non -State Aid local units of government may also apply but will require an eligible project sponsor. What is eligible? ROW acquisition must be for a constrained project in the St. Cloud APO's 2035 Plan (Attachment P, pg. 2, Xs 1- 13). Project sponsors may only be reimbursed for the costs that were paid for the acquired property, not the value of the property at the time for which reimbursement is requested. This amount shall be based on the property's Fair Market Value. Traditional items associated with acquisition include the purchase of land, buildings, relocation of displaced property owners /businesses, damages to property resulting from access changes, etc. What are some of the eligibility considerations? • ROW acquisition must be established as a Federal Aid project and must adhere to and follow the appropriate project development process and requirements. • Projects must have defined construction limits. This means that the project sponsor has successfully completed the necessary environmental review documentation, i.e., EA, EIS, etc., and has a defined corridor. • ROW funding requests must be made separately from construction funding requests for the same roadway project, and will be prioritized independently by the APO Policy Board. • ROW funding is not available if a project has already been authorized for construction. • Federal approval is required prior to acquisition. Are utility pole relocation activities an eligible reimbursement expense? • Yes — If the ROW acquisition occurs in an area that impacts a utility, the costs can be covered as part of normal relocation. • No — If the utility company is located within the current ROW by permit, the utility company will need to relocate at their expense. Is there a statute of limitations placed on ROW acquisition whereby the project sponsor may be required to payback SAFETEA -LU funds used for these purposes if no construction project is built? • Yes — Project sponsors must construct a phase of a project within 10 years from the date of acquisition. FHWA and Mn /DOT track acquisition activities annually using the Federal Management Information System to ensure compliance. If a phase of a project is not constructed within the 10 -year period, the project sponsor will be required to payback Mn /DOT for the full amount it received as part of the acquisition, not the value of the property at the time of payback. • Reimbursements become a credit to the State and subsequently a credit to FHWA. Since the funding was obligated in a prior year from the year of payback, the State loses the funding. How are right -of -way submittals scored by the APO in the prioritization process? • Right -of -way submittals are scored the same as a new alignment roadway submittal. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STUDY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: Who may apply? • Any State Aid eligible city, county, or tribal government may apply. Non -State Aid local units of government may also apply but will require an eligible project sponsor. What is eligible? Project development studies must be for a financially constrained or constrained illustrative project identified in the St. Cloud APO's 2035 Plan. What are some of the eligibility considerations? • Eligible project development activities consist of planning studies and certain engineering activities. Planning includes those activities that take place before the selection of a preferred alternative. Eligibility is restricted to corridor studies /planning activities where construction projects are the intended outcome. The eligible engineering activities include preliminary and final design costs associated with the development and preparation of environmental review documents such as an Environmental Assessment (EA), Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), etc. Construction engineering is not eligible. Is there a statute of limitations placed on project development studies whereby the project sponsor is required to payback SAFETEA -LU funds used for these purposes if no construction project is built? • Yes — Project sponsors must construct a phase of a project within 10 years from the date that funds are obligated for the study. FHWA and Mn /DOT track acquisition activities annually using the Federal Management Information System to ensure compliance. If a phase of a project is not constructed within the 10 -year period, the project sponsor must payback the federal funds. What are the deliverables for a project development study? • The deliverables are the actual document (corridor study, EA, or EIS) approved by the participating jurisdictions and agencies. The outcome of these efforts must be oriented toward specific improvements to an existing or planned corridor. What is the minimum cost for a project development study? • A minimum total project cost of $50,000 [Federal Share = $40,000 (80 %)] is required. How are project development submittals scored by the APO in the prioritization process? • Project development submittals are scored the same as a new alignment roadway submittal. St. Cloud Area Planning Organization Right -of -Way and Project Development Study Federal Funding Application 1. Lead Agency: 2. Project Contact: 3. Facility or Route: 6. Functional Classification: 7. STP Funds Requested: 20% Local Match: Total Funds: 8. Project Description: 4. From: 5. To: NOTE: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE "APO FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECT CHECKLIST" APPLY TO RIGHT -OF -WAY AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STUDY SUBMITTALS: #2, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #11, #12 AND #13. Federal Authorization Process for Project Development Studies 1. Prepare a Project Memorandum summarizing type of corridor study work, cost of the corridor study and deliverables to be provided. 2. Obtain Project Memorandum approval from Mn /DOT District 3 State -Aid Engineer and Mn /DOT State - Aid Engineer. 3. Mn /DOT State -Aid Engineer requests Authorization of corridor study from FHWA. 4. If desired, obtain Mn /DOT advanced construction agreement approval and amend study funds into earlier STIP program year. 5. If needed, Mn /DOT State -Aid Engineer requests Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal to be set. 6. Prepare Request for Proposal (RFP). 7. Agreement written with Mn /DOT for transaction of federal funds. 8. Select consulting firm. 9. Obtain approval of "pre -award audit' information for selected consulting firm by Mn /DOT Audit Section. 10. Prepare and execute consultant contract (Mn /DOT /FHWA approval is required if DBE goal is set). 11. Complete corridor study, obtain FONSI /Negative Declaration for Preferred Alternative, and if desired, prepare an official map. 12. Request District 3 State -Aid Engineer for federal reimbursement, who forwards request to Mn /DOT State -Aid Engineer. 13. Initiate construction of at least one phase of the Preferred Alternative within ten (10) years from the date that the federal study funds are obligated. If a phase of construction does not begin within this period, the federal dollars must be reimbursed to FHWA. (Federal environmental documents have a 3 -year shelf life, after which time they are subject to revaluation if a project has not been initiated). Federal Authorization Process for Right -of -Way Acquisition The federal authorization process for right -of -way acquisition is the same as for a roadway project. Initiate construction of at least one phase of the project within ten (10) years from the date that the federal study funds are obligated for right -of -way acquisition. If a phase of construction does not begin within this period, the federal dollars must be reimbursed to FHWA. St. Cloud Metropolitan Area Attachment P 2035 Transportation Plan Please refer to accompanying table for project descriptions. Projects may be funded through formula funding earmarks or a combination of funding sources St. Cloud Metropolitan Area 2035 Roadway Plan Project Involved Agencies I Facility I Project Description I 2035 Plan I 2035 Running Investment IDS Cost Cost Time Frame Constrained Projects Stearns County, City of St. 33rd Street Construction to add capacity from Granite View 1 Cloud, City of Waite Park So. Road in Waite Park to Cooper Ave nue in St. Cloud $9,084,375 $9,084,375 Construction of new alignment from Westwood City of St. Joseph, City of St. Joseph Parkway in St. Cloud to Stearns CR 133 in St. 2 St. Cloud No. Corridor Joseph $5,578,125 $14,662,500 2014 -2020 3 C ty of Sartell Sartell Bride Restripe bridge to 4 lanes $0 $14,662,500 Road /Bridge maintenance & operations, safety, 4 St. Cloud Metro Area Flexible Pot bike /pedestrian, transit capital $14,662,500 $29,325,000 Benton County, City of Benton Construction to add capacity and remove parking 5 Sauk Rapids CSAH 3 from 3rd Avenue to TH 10 $4,125,000 $33,450,000 Benton Construction for new alignment from CSAH 1 to 6 Benton County CSAH 29 CSAH 8 $6,703,085 $40,153,085 Right-of-way for new alignment from Westwood City of St. Joseph, City of St. Joseph Parkway in St. Cloud to Stearns CR 133 in St. 2021 -2028 7 St. Cloud No. Corridor Joseph $4,331,250 $44,484,335 40th Street Right-of-way for new roadway alignment from 8 City of St. Cloud So. Cooper Avenue to Stearns CSAH 75 $1,608,750 $46,093,085 Road /Bridge maintenance & operations, safety, 9 St. Cloud Metro Area Flexible Pot bike /pedestrian, transit capital $16,768,085 $62,861,170 Stearns County, City of St. Opportunity Construction of new alignment from 1 -94 to 10 Augusta, City of St. Cloud Drive Stearns CSAH 7 $3,331,250 $66,192,420 Stearns County, City of St. 33rd Street Right-of-way & construction to add capacity from 11 Cloud So. Cooper Avenue to Stearns CSAH 75 $7,405,625 $73,598,045 2029 -2035 Right-of-way for new alignment from Pinecone Rd. 12 City of Sartell Roberts Road to Stearns CSAH 4 at 322nd Street $3,627,504 $77,225,549 Road/Bridge maintenance & operations, safety, 13 St. Cloud Metro Area Flexible Pot bike /pedestrian, trans it ca pital $14,364,379 $91,589,928 Constrained Illustrative Projects Benton County, City of Benton Right-of-way for capacity expansion from 3rd 14 Sauk Rapids CSAH 3 Avenue to TH 10 $2,250,000 $93,839,928 University Construction to expand bridge and approaches to 15 City of St. Cloud Bridge 4lanes $13,050,000 $104,639,928 Stearns County, City of St. TH 15/33rd Right-of-way & construction for TH 15/33rd Street 16 Cloud, City of Waite Park Street So. South Interchange $15,750,000 $120,389,928 Benton Right-of-way for new alignment from CSAH 1 to 17 lBenton County CSAH 29 CSAH 8 $7,312,458 $127,702,386 Stearns County, City of St. 33rd Street Right-of-way from Granite View Road in Waite 18 Cloud, City of Waite Park So. Park to Cooper Avenue in St. Cloud $5,568,750 $133,271,136 33rd Street Stearns County, City of So. Right-of-way for new alignment from Granite View 19 Waite Park (SW Beltway) Road to CR 137 $4,500,000 $137,771,136 2014 -2035 Right-of-way & construction for new alignment from Heritage Drive to south of 2nd Street South and realign 50th Avenue north of Stearns CSAH 20 JCity of Sartell 50th Avenue 120 in Sartell $6,000,000 $143,771,136 Stearns County, City of St. Opportunity Right-of-way for new alignment from 1 -94 to 21 Augusta, City of St. Cloud Drive Stearns CSAH 7 $2,925,000 $146,696,136 Sherburne County, City of Sherburne Construction of realignment west of airport from 22 St. Cloud CSAH 7 Del Tone Road to Sherburne CSAH 3 $3,750,000 $150,446,136 Construction for new alignment from Pinecone Rd. 23 City of Sartell Roberts Road to Stearns CSAH 4 at 322nd Street $4,495,017 $154,941,153 Right-of-way & construction for new 4 lane divided urban section along Stearns CR 134 from Stearns Pinecone Road /Stearns CR 134 to West Oakes 24 lCity of St. Cloud CSAH 134 Drive $2,100,000 $157,041,153 Note: Cost estimates do not include final design or contingencies. 35% local match assumed for short, medium and long range investments; 50% local match assumed for Illustrative projects. ,J'aiii� � %rrrd Area Planing Organizat1*0H 1040 Count)' Road 4, St. Cloud, MN 56303 -0643 (3210 252 -7508 • (320) 252 -655' (FAX) • E -mail: admin ®stcloudapo.org • www.stcloudapo.org October 16, 2009 MEMORANDUM TO: Mitch Anderson, Stearns County Tom Cruikshank, St. Cloud Metro Bus Steve Gaetz, City of St. Cloud Patti Gartland, City of Sartell Bob Kozel, Benton County Rhonda Lewis, Sherburne County Ross Olsen, City of Sauk Rapids Bill Schluenz, City of Waite Park Steve Voss, Mn /DOT District 3 Judy Weyrens, City of St. Joseph FROM: Kirby Becker SUBJECT: December 3rd TAC Meeting: APO Federal Project Status Reports As you are aware, the Central Minnesota Area Transportation Partnership (ATP) has asked that annual updates be provided to each ATP region (APO, 7w, 5 and 7e) and the District 3 State - Aid Engineer regarding the cost and project development status of programmed federal projects. These status reports are intended to encourage early initiation of project development work, so unforeseen issues can be addressed without delaying project implementation. If unavoidable delays occur, project status reports provide a mechanism for the implementing agency to communicate project issues and associated delays directly to the APO, Mn /DOT and any potentially affected local units of government. The District 3 State - Aid Engineer will review APO project updates and make necessary program adjustments to the Area Transportation Improvement Program (ATIP) on a case -by -case basis. The St. Cloud Area Planning Organization (APO) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will discuss the status of currently programmed federal projects within the APO Area on Thursday, December 3 d, 2009. A list of the APO's currently programmed federal transportation projects from 2010 -2013 is attached. Please review the table and complete one status report form (also attached) for each of your jurisdiction's projects to share with the TAC. The APO will forward your information to the District 3 State -Aid Engineer. Should you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. CC: Kelvin Howieson, Mn /DOT District 3 State -Aid Engineer V I ;A9 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. St. Cloud Area Planning Organization Federal Transportation Project Status Report Federal Project Number: Report Date: Implementing Agency: Project Contact: Telephone: Facility or Route: Termini (From /To): Project Description: Initial Programmed FY: Current Programmed FY: Federal Funds Programmed in STIP: State Funds Programmed in STIP: Local Funds Programmed in STIP: Total Funds Programmed in STIP: Has the federal project development process been initiated (Y or N)? Explain: Is the project a candidate for advancement in the STIP (Y or N)? Are there issues that may delay the project beyond its current program year (Y or N)? Explain: St Cloud Metropolitan Area 9010 -9011 TIP Prni - 201 ® ©� © ® ®® m© ® ON MEN mommmommon ENE --immommmommon .MEN ..no .Mnn M®' MINSENSOMMON 2011 2012 mmm]01l ATTACHMENT E TAC Recommended FY2010 Federa /Appropriations List & Priority St. Cloud Area Planning Organization FY 2010 Federal Appropriations: - Roadway & Bike /Pedestrian Priority List St. Cloud Area Planning Organization FY 2009 Federal Appropriations. Roadway & Bike /Pedestrian Priority List FY 2010 Appropriations FY 2010 Request Local Match Priority Project Description 80% 20% 1 West Metro Corridor — Phase II Right -of -Way 1 Stearns CSAH 138 to East of Anderson Avenue $2,000,000 $500,000 2 IBenton CSAH 29 Right-of-Way $640,000 $160,000 3 50` Avenue Right-of-Way, Sartell $800,000 $200,000 4 University Bridge Right-of-Way & Construction $2,000,000 $500,000 5 TH 15/33`d Street Interchange Right-of-Way $3,000,000 $750,000 6 0` Street Right-of-Way, St. Cloud $800,000 $200,000 7 Rocori Bike & Pedestrian Trail Right -of -Way & Construction — Phase III $720,000 $180,000 8 Lake Wobegon Trail Right -of -Way & Construction CSAH 133 to Mississippi River $2,590,000 $647,600 Totalsl $12,550,000 $3,137,600 St. Cloud Area Planning Organization FY 2009 Federal Appropriations. Roadway & Bike /Pedestrian Priority List FY 2009 Appropriations FY 2009 Request Local Match Priority Project Description 80% 20% West Metro Corridor 1 Stearns CSAH 4 /CR 134 /CSAH 138 $3,000,000 $750,000 2 IBenton CSAH 29 Right of Way $1,000,000 $250,000 3 50"' Avenue Right-of-Way, Sartell $800,000 $2009000 4 40th Street Right-of-Way, St. Cloud $800,000 $200,000 5 Benton CSAH 3 /2nd Street North Right of Way $2,000,000 $500,000 Totalsi $7,600,000 $1,900,000 St. Cloud Area Planning Organization MBRO BUS FY 2010 Federal Appropriations: the people picker- uppers. Transit Priority List MAO BUS the people picker - uppers. St. Cloud Area Planning Organization FY 2009 Federal Appropriations: Transit Priority List FY 2009 Priority Project Description FY 2010 Local Match 20% 1 Buses — Purchase up to 12 Replacement Small Buses Appropriations $312,000 FY 2010 Shelters — Bus Shelter Transit Amenity Program Request Local Match Priority Project Description 80% 20% 1 Fleet Replacement 4 Small & 4 Large Buses $1,600,000 $400,000 5 Automated Visual & Audio Stop Annunciation. $992,000 $248,000 6 Interactive Customer Info. System, Dial -a -Ride Dispatch $160,000 $40,000 7 System Upgrade, Transit Signal Priority & fiber optic $80,000 $20,000 2 communications $240,000 $60,000 Bus Washer, Bus Shelters & Transit 3 Center Relocation Study & Engineering $320,000 $80,000 4 jPurchase 4 Used Northstar Commuter Buses $480,000 $120,000 Right -of -Way Acquisition & Construction for TH 10 5 Northstar Commuter Bus Park & Ride Lot and 1 -94 Park & Pool Lot $800,000 $200,000 Totaisl $3,440,000 $860,000 MAO BUS the people picker - uppers. St. Cloud Area Planning Organization FY 2009 Federal Appropriations: Transit Priority List FY 2009 Priority Project Description FY 2009 Appropriation Request 80% Local Match 20% 1 Buses — Purchase up to 12 Replacement Small Buses $1,248,000 $312,000 2 Shelters — Bus Shelter Transit Amenity Program $160,000 $40,000 3 Northstar Commuter Buses 3 $360,000 $90,000 4 TH 10 & 1 -94 Facilities for Commuter Bus & Park & Pool $800,000 $200,000 5 Large Buses — 4 Replacement Large Buses $992,000 $248,000 6 lITS — AVL Project, Dial -a -Ride and Transit Signal Priority $160,000 $40,000 7 �ransit Hub Study and Construction of Hub Stop $80,000 $20,000 Totals $3,800,000 $950,000 St. Cloud Area Planning Organization FY 2011 Federal Appropriations: Roadway & Bike /Pedestrian Priority List Comments /Questions: 1. West Metro Corridor will be ineligible because federal money spent before FY 2011. 2. In previous years only member jurisdiction projects were included on the APO priority list. 3. Will any federal money be spent on right -of -way or construction for 50`h Avenue before FY 2011? 4. Other projects that MLqW meet criteria (project development, no federal money spent & able to spend money in FY 2011) include: • Northstar Phase II ROW /construction • St. Joseph North Corridor East (Westwood Parkway) ROW /construction • Roberts Road ROW /construction • 33rd Street S. ROW /construction • Beaver Island Trail ROW /Construction (only if no advancement) 0 St. Cloud Area Planning Organization FY 2010 Federal Appropriations: Roadway & Bike /Pedestrian Priority List FY 2010 Priority Project Description FY 2011 Local Match 20% 1 Right of Wa Appropriations $504,40 FY 2011 Request Local Match Priority Project Description 80% 20% 1 Benton CSAH 29 Right-of-Way, Benton County $640,000 $160,000 2 50` Avenue Right-of-Way, Sartell $800,000 $200,000 3 University Drive Right-of-Way, St. Cloud $2,000,000 $500,000 4 TH 15/33'd St Interchange Right-of-Way, Stearns Co. $3,000,000 $750,000 5 40 `h Street Right-of-Way, St. Cloud $800,000 $200,000 6 Lake Wobegon Trail Right -of -Way & Construction $647,600 Totalsl $12,550,000 CSAH 133 to Mississippi River $2,590,000 $647,600 7 8 Totals Comments /Questions: 1. West Metro Corridor will be ineligible because federal money spent before FY 2011. 2. In previous years only member jurisdiction projects were included on the APO priority list. 3. Will any federal money be spent on right -of -way or construction for 50`h Avenue before FY 2011? 4. Other projects that MLqW meet criteria (project development, no federal money spent & able to spend money in FY 2011) include: • Northstar Phase II ROW /construction • St. Joseph North Corridor East (Westwood Parkway) ROW /construction • Roberts Road ROW /construction • 33rd Street S. ROW /construction • Beaver Island Trail ROW /Construction (only if no advancement) 0 St. Cloud Area Planning Organization FY 2010 Federal Appropriations: Roadway & Bike /Pedestrian Priority List FY 2010 Priority Project Description FY 2010 Appropriations Request 80% Local Match 20% 1 Right of Wa $24,00,00 $504,40 2 Benton CSAH 29 Right-of-Way — $640,000 $160,000 3 50th Avenue Right-of-Way, Sartell $800,000 $200,000 4 University Bridge Right-of-Way & Construction $2,000,000 $500,000 5 TH 15/33`d Street Interchange Right-of-Way $3,000,000 $750,000 6 40 ` Street Right-of-Way, St. Cloud $800,000 $200,000 T $720,000 $480,009 8 Lake Wobegon Trail Right -of -Way & Construction CSAH 133 to Mississippi River $2,590,000 $647,600 Totalsl $12,550,000 $3,137,600 St. Cloud Area Planning Organization MBORO BUS FY 2011 Federal Appropriations: the people picker - uppers. Transit Priority List St. Cloud Area Planning Organization ME � RO BUS FY 2010 Federal Appropriations: the people picker - uppers. Transit Priority List FY 2011 Appropriations FY 2011 Request Local Match Priority Project Description 80% 20% 1 Transit Center Expansion and Renovation $1,600,000 $400,000 2 Purchase 2 Large Buses $640,000 $160,000 Totalsl $2,240,000 1 $560,000 St. Cloud Area Planning Organization ME � RO BUS FY 2010 Federal Appropriations: the people picker - uppers. Transit Priority List FY 2010 Appropriations FY 2010 Request Local Match Priority Project Description 80% 20% 1 Fleet Replacement 4 Small & 4 Large Buses $1,600,000 $400,000 Automated Visual & Audio Stop Annunciation. Interactive Customer Info. System, Dial -a -Ride Dispatch System Upgrade, Transit Signal Priority & fiber optic 2 communications $240,000 $60,000 Bus Washer, Bus Shelters & Transit 3 ICenter Relocation Study & Engineering $320,000 $80,000 4 Purchase 4 Used Northstar Commuter Buses $480,000 $120,000 Right -of -Way Acquisition & Construction for TH 10 5 Northstar Commuter Bus Park & Ride Lot and 1 -94 Park & Pool Lot $800,000 $200,000 Totalsl $3,440,000 1 $860,000 9 C� I 1112, is, ,la ti ofq4_ APO Regional Significance TIP Scoring by Project Type (Sample Alternative) Maximum 100 pts. Project Type Potential Criteria System Expansion Congestion Relief/ Usage (20 pts.) Safety Benefit (20 pts.) System Continuity (20 pts.) p ) Multi-Modal Accomodation/ Benefit (20 pts.) Land Use Accomodation/ Benefit (20 pts ) System Preservation Bic cle &Pedestrian Transit Capital Operational Im rovements Studies Quantitative Scoring "1 / n Congestion Relief /Usage: co I Al -11e , , M ,�ca 3 `1�l � ��1.4u /Jac Project improves LOS on both facility (link) & on entire system or as a high bik /ped./transit usage. 20 pts. Project improves LOS either facility (link) or on entire system or has a medium bike /ped./transit usage. 10 pts. Project does not improve LOS on either facility (link) or on entire system or has a low bike /ped. /transit usage. 0 pts. Safety/Security Benefit: tAa�,� d il - c�Ltel,oww� QC�CC. � .��c�T Ct�l.i C,�. Project accomodates an area where a fatality or fatalities have occurred. 20 pts. Project accomodates an area where a personal injury or injuries have occurred. 15 pts. Project accomodates an area where property damage crashes have occurred. 5 pts. No crashes have occurred. 0 pts. System Continuity: Project fills an existing gap in the transportation system. 20 pts. Project is part of a larger project where one segment of a larger project is being accomodated. 10 pts. Project has no demonstrated connections, does not fill existing system gaps or is part of a larger project/master plan. 0 pts. Multi-Modal Accommodation /Benefit: atvMi 4w JftW4,, alp,. 4 --,yw Project includes separated trail and accomodates transit in design. 20 pts. Project includes paved shoulder, sidewalk or bike lane and accomodates transit in design. 3n 10 pts. Project has no demostrated or no improvements to existing multi -modal accomodations and does not accomodate transit in design. 0 pts. Land Use Accomodation /Benefit: Project accomodates existing land use (i.e. development). 20 pts. Project accomodates planned (i.e. next 20- years) land use 10 pts. Project accomodates no existing or planned land use (i.e. beyond 20- years). 0 pts. Qualitative Assessment - Level of Qualitative Strength (weak to strong) Project Readiness (Development) Explain the steps that have been taken to assure delivery of project within the timeframe of requested federal money. Metro Vision /Regional Significance /Local Support Explain how the project meets the overall metro vision, its' regional significance and local plans (APO, Mn/DOT D3, city /county, etc.) the project is included. Social, Environmental & Economic Benefit Explain how the project improves air quality, water quality, noise, etc., avoids environmental senisitve areas, provides benefits or reduces burden to environmental justice populations, and improves community livability and quality of life. Check boxes could include: Is the project benefit/cost greater than 1? Does the project have an earmark associated with it? If the project has current funding, is there a significant local overmatch? Does the project involve more than jurisdictions? �y '12" A St. Cloud Area Planining Organization FY 2011 Federal Appropriations: Roadway & Bike /Pedestrian Priority List FY 2011 Priority Project Description FY 2011 Appropriations Request 80% Local Match 20% 1 Benton CSAH 29 Right-of-Way, Benton County $640,000 $160,000 2 50 Avenue Right-of-Way, Sartell $800,000 $200,000 3 University Drive Right-of-Way, St. Cloud $2,000,000 $500,000 4 TH 15/33`d St Interchange Right-of-Way, Stearns Co. $3,000,000 $750,000 5 40th Street Right-of-Way, St. Cloud $800,000 $200,000 6 Lake Wobegon Trail Right -of -Way & Construction CSAH 133 to Mississippi River $2,590,000 $647,600 7 $200,000 7 8 $4>f9,$9A 8 Lake Wobegon Trail Right -of -Way & Construction CSAH 133 to Mississippi River Totals $647,600 Totalsl Comments/Questions: 1. West Metro Corridor will be ineligible because federal money spent before FY 2011. 2. In previous years only member jurisdiction projects were included on the APO priority list. 3. Will any federal money be spent on right -of -way or construction for 50`h Avenue before FY 2011? 4. Other projects that might meet criteria (project development, no federal money spent & able to spend money in FY 2011) include: • Northstar Phase II ROW /construction • St. Joseph North Corridor East (Westwood Parkway) ROW /construction oU.d I.W FO NS I • Roberts Road ROW /construction • 33`d Street S. ROW /construction M v , c�a �� I� Q A" • Beaver Island Trail ROW /Construction (only if no advancement) vwtsuq FV/;F>A7/"'!J -° St. Cloud Area Planning Organization FY 2010 Federal Appropriations: Roadway & Bike /Pedestrian Priority List FY 2010 Priority Project Description FY 2010 Appropriations Request 80% Local Match 20% 1 Right UAGG -l099 $609,000 2 Benton CSAH 29 Right-of-Way $640,000 $160,000 3 0 Avenue Right-of-Way, Sartell $800,000 $200,000 4 University Bridge Right-of-Way & Construction $2,000,000 $500,000 5 TH 15/33`d Street Interchange Right-of-Way $3,000,000 $750,000 6 40 Street Right-of-Way, St. Cloud $800,000 $200,000 7 $720,000 $4>f9,$9A 8 Lake Wobegon Trail Right -of -Way & Construction CSAH 133 to Mississippi River $2,590,000 $647,600 Totalsl $12,550,000 $3,137,600 St. Cloud Metropolitan Area 2035 Roadway Plan Project Involved Agencies Facility Project Description 2035 Plan 2035 Running Investment IDff Constrained Projects Cost Cost Time Frame Stearns County, City of St. 33rd Street Construction to add capacity from Granite View 1 Cloud, City of Waite Park So. Road in Waite Park to CooperAvenue in St. Cloud $9,084,375 $9,084,375 Construction of new alignment from Westwood City of St. Joseph, City of St. Joseph Parkway in St. Cloud to Stearns CR 133 in St. 2 St. Cloud No. Corridor Joseph $5,578,125 $14.662,500 2014 -2020 3 City of Sartell Sartell Bride Restripe bridge to 4 lanes $0 $14.662,500 Road /Bridge maintenance &operations, safety, 4 St. Cloud Metro Area Flexible Pot bike /pedestrian, transit capital $14.662.500 $29,325,000 Benton County, City of Benton Construction to add capacity and remove parking 5 Sauk Rapids CSAH 3 from 3rd Avenue to TH 10 $4.125,000 $33.450,000 Benton Construction for new alignment from CSAH 1 to 6 Benton County CSAH 29 CSAH 8 $6.703.085 $40.153.085 Right-of-way for new alignment from Westwood City of St. Joseph, City of St. Joseph Parkway In St. Cloud to Stearns CR 133 in St. 2021.2028 7 St. Cloud No. Corridor lJoseph $4,331,250 $44,484,335 40th Street Right-of-way for new roadway alignment from 8 City of St. Cloud So. Cooper Avenue to Stearns CSAH 75 $1.608.750 $46,093,085 Road /Bridge maintenance & operations, safety, 9 St. Cloud Metro Area Flexible Pot bike /pedestrian, transit capital $16,768,085 $62,861,170 Stearns County, City of St. Opportunity Construction of new alignment from 1 -94 to 10 _Augusta, City of St. Cloud Drive Steams CSAH 7 $3,331,250 $66,192.420 Stearns County, City of St. 33rd Street Right-of -way & construction to add capacity from 11 Cloud So. Cooper Avenue to Steams CSAH 75 $7,405,625 $73.596.045 2029-2035 Right-of-way for new alignment from Pinecons Rd. 12 City of Sarte11 Roberts Road to Stearns CSAH 4 at 322nd Street $3,627,504 $77,225,549 Road /Bridge maintenance & operations, safety, 13 Constrained St. Cloud Metro Area Illustrative Flexible Pot bike /pedestrian, transit capital $14,364,379 $91,589,928 Projects Benton County, City of Benton Right-of-way for capacity expansion from 3rd 14 Sauk Rapids CSAH 3 Avenue to TH 10 $2,250,000 $93,839.928 University Construction to expand bridge and approaches to 15 City of St. Cloud Bride 4lanes $13.050.000 $104,639,928 Stearns County, City of St. TH 15133rd Right-of-way & construction for TH 15133rd Street 16 Cloud. City of Waite Park Street So. South Interchange $15.750.000 $120,389,928 Benton Rightof -way for new alignment from CSAH 1 to 17 Benton Countv CSAH 29 CSAH 8 $7.312,458 $127.702,386 Steams Counii City of t. rd treat Right-of-way from Granite View Road in Waite 18 Cloud. Cfly of Wafte Park So. Park to Cooper Avenue In St. Cloud $5.568.750 $133,271,136 33rd Street Steams County, City of So. Right-of-way for new alignment from Granite View 19 Waffle Park (SW Beltway Road to CR 137 $4,500.000 $137.771.136 2014 -2035 Right-of-way & construction for new alignment from Heritage Drive to south of 2nd Street South and realign 50th Avenue north of Stearns CSAH 20 101ty ofSarteIt MhAvenue 120 InSartell $6.000.000 $143,771,136 Steams County, City of St. Opportunity Right-of-way for new alignment from 1 -94 to 21 Augusta. City of St Cloud Drive Steams CSAH 7 $2.925.000 $146.696,136 Sherbume County, City of Sherburne Construction of realignment west of airport from 22 St. Cloud CSAH 7 1 Del Tone Road to Sherburne CSAH 3 $3.750.000 $150.446.136 Construction for new alignment from Pinecone Rd 23 City of Sarte11 Roberts Road to Stearns CSAH 4 at 322nd Street $4.495.017 $154.941,153 Right-of-way & construction for new 4lane divided urban section along Stearns CR 134 from Stearns Pinecone Road/Steams CR 134 to West Oakes 24 Clty of St. Cloud CSAH 134 Drive $2,100.000 $157,041.153 r/vw: k,osi estimates ao not include nnal design or contingencies. 35 / local match assumed for short, medium and long range investments; 50% local match assumed for Illustrative projects.