485 th Policy Board Meeting of the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments THURSDAY, September 20, 2012 – 4:00 p.m. - Metro COG Conference Room OVERALL AGENDA A. Call to Order and Introductions 1. Approve Order and Contents of the Overall Agenda Action Requested 2. Approve Minutes of the August 16, 2012 Board Meeting (Attachment 1) Action Requested 3. Approve September 2012 Bills (Attachment 2) Action Requested B. Consent Agenda 1. Approve Items a-b (Attachment CA-1a-1b) Action Requested a) Consider 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment b) Consider 12 th Avenue North Cooperative PCR / Design Contract with Benesch C. Regular Agenda 1. Consider Monthly Budget Report and Updates Regarding Staffing and Personnel – Wade Kline (Attachment RA-1) Action Requested 2. Consider Executive Committee Recommendation Regarding Cost of Living Adjustment for CY 2012 – Wade Kline (Attachment RA-2) Action Requested 3. Discussion Regarding Potential Adjustments to Metropolitan Planning Area and Urbanized Area – Wade Kline and Joe Nigg (Attachment RA-3) Board Information 4. Update from Mn/DOT District 4 Engineer – Jody Martinson (Attachment RA-4) Board Information 5. Update Regarding New Federal Transportation Authorization MAP-21 – Wade Kline (Attachment RA-5) Board Information 6. Other Business and Citizen Comment Period D. Announcements / Committee or Staff Reports / Correspondence Board Information Attachment D1: TIP Development and Maintenance Attachment D2: Functional Classification and Urbanized Area (UZA) Attachment D3: Clay County Access Management Policy E. Adjourn F. REMINDER: The next Metro COG Policy Board Meeting will be held Thursday, October 18, 2012 in the Metro COG Conference Room. NOTE: Full Agenda packets can be found on the Metro COG Web Site at http://www.fmmetrocog.org – Committees Metro COG is committed to ensuring all individuals regardless of race, color, sex, age, national origin, disability/handicap, sexual orientation, or income status have access to Metro COG’s programs and services. Meeting facilities will be accessible to mobility impaired individuals. Metro COG will make a good faith effort to accommodate requests for translation services for meeting proceedings and related materials. Please contact Joan Geyer, Metro COG Executive Secretary at 701.232.3242 at least five days in advance of the meeting if any special accommodations are required for any member of the public to be able to participate in the meeting. A PLANNING ORGANIZATION SERVING FARGO, WEST FARGO, CASS COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA AND MOORHEAD, DILWORTH, CLAY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments Email: [email protected]http://www.fmmetrocog.org 701.232.3242 • FAX 701.232.5043 • Case Plaza Suite 232 • One 2nd Street North • Fargo, North Dakota 58102-4807
Transcript
485th Policy Board Meeting of the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments
THURSDAY, September 20, 2012 – 4:00 p.m. - Metro COG Conference Room
OVERALL AGENDA
A. Call to Order and Introductions 1. Approve Order and Contents of the Overall Agenda Action Requested 2. Approve Minutes of the August 16, 2012 Board Meeting (Attachment 1) Action Requested 3. Approve September 2012 Bills (Attachment 2)
Action Requested
B. Consent Agenda 1. Approve Items a-b (Attachment CA-1a-1b) Action Requested a) Consider 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment b) Consider 12th Avenue North Cooperative PCR / Design Contract with Benesch C. Regular Agenda
1. Consider Monthly Budget Report and Updates Regarding Staffing and Personnel – Wade Kline (Attachment RA-1)
Action Requested
2. Consider Executive Committee Recommendation Regarding Cost of Living Adjustment for CY 2012 – Wade Kline (Attachment RA-2)
Action Requested
3. Discussion Regarding Potential Adjustments to Metropolitan Planning Area and Urbanized Area – Wade Kline and Joe Nigg (Attachment RA-3)
Board Information
4. Update from Mn/DOT District 4 Engineer – Jody Martinson (Attachment RA-4) Board Information 5. Update Regarding New Federal Transportation Authorization MAP-21 – Wade Kline
(Attachment RA-5) Board Information
6. Other Business and Citizen Comment Period D. Announcements / Committee or Staff Reports / Correspondence Board Information Attachment D1: TIP Development and Maintenance
Attachment D2: Functional Classification and Urbanized Area (UZA) Attachment D3: Clay County Access Management Policy
E.
Adjourn
F. REMINDER: The next Metro COG Policy Board Meeting will be held Thursday, October 18, 2012 in the Metro COG Conference Room.
NOTE: Full Agenda packets can be found on the Metro COG Web Site at http://www.fmmetrocog.org – Committees Metro COG is committed to ensuring all individuals regardless of race, color, sex, age, national origin, disability/handicap, sexual orientation, or income status have access to Metro COG’s programs and services. Meeting facilities will be accessible to mobility impaired individuals. Metro COG will make a good faith effort to accommodate requests for translation services for meeting proceedings and related materials. Please contact Joan Geyer, Metro COG Executive Secretary at 701.232.3242 at least five days in advance of the meeting if any special accommodations are required for any member of the public to be able to participate in the meeting.
A PLANNING ORGANIZATION SERVING FARGO, WEST FARGO, CASS COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA AND MOORHEAD, DILWORTH, CLAY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments Email: [email protected] http://www.fmmetrocog.org
701.232.3242 • FAX 701.232.5043 • Case Plaza Suite 232 • One 2nd Street North • Fargo, North Dakota 58102-4807
484th Meeting of the FM Metro COG Policy Board – page 1 Thursday, August 16, 2012
484th Policy Board Meeting Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments
Thursday, August 17, 2012 - 4:00 p.m. Metro COG Conference Room
Members Present: Vern Bennett, Policy Board Chair, Cass County Commission Jerry Waller, Policy Board Vice Chair, Clay County Commission Mark Hintermeyer (for Steve Gehrtz, Moorhead City Council) Mike Hulett, Moorhead City Council Julie Nash, Dilworth City Council John Q. Paulsen, Fargo Planning Commission Jan Ulferts Stewart, Fargo Planning Commission Wayne Ingersoll, Moorhead Planning Commission Dr. Tim Mahoney, Fargo City Commission Mark Simmons, West Fargo City Commission Wade Frank, Associate Member, City of Horace Members Absent: Peggy Palmes, Fargo Planning Commission Mike Williams, Fargo City Commission Brad Wimmer, Fargo City Commission Melissa Sobolik, Fargo City Commission Others Present: Grant Weyland, Clay County Commission Wade Kline, Metro COG Katie White, Metro COG Joan Geyer, Metro COG A. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER, WELCOME, AND INTRODUCTIONS, convened
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m., on August 17, 2012 by Chairman Bennett noting a quorum was present. Introductions were made.
A1. Approve Order and Contents of Overall Agenda, approved
Chairman Bennett asked for approval of the Order and Contents of the Overall Agenda.
MOTION, passed Mr. Paulsen moved, seconded by Mr. Waller to approve the August 16, 2012 Policy Board Overall Agenda. Motion carried unanimously.
Attachment 1
484th Meeting of the FM Metro COG Policy Board – page 2 Thursday, August 16, 2012
A2. Past Meeting Minutes, approved
Chairman Bennett asked for approval of the Minutes of the July 19, 2012 Meeting noting one correction on page 2 – B1. Vice Chair Waller (rather than Chairman Bennett) asked for approval of ....
MOTION, passed Mr. Waller moved, seconded by Ms. Ulferts Stewart to approve the July 19, 2012 Council Meeting Minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously.
A3. Monthly Bills, approved Chairman Bennett asked for approval of the August 2012 bills as listed on Attachment 2.
MOTION, passed
Mr. Paulsen moved, seconded by Ms. Ulferts Stewart to approve the August 2012 Council Bills List (Attachment 2). Motion carried unanimously.
B. CONSENT AGENDA B1. Chairman Bennett asked for approval of Item CA-1a to CA-1c on the Consent Agenda,
as noted below: B1a. Consider 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment
To approve the two amendments and one modification to the 2012-2015 TIP as recommended by the TTC, approved.
B1b. Consider Metropolitan Transportation Planning Certification Process. To approve the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Certification as recommended by the TTC at their August 9, 2012 Meeting, approved
B1c. Consider Scope of Work for Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Linkages Study To approve the Scope of Work for Bicycle, Pedestrian, Transit Linkage as recommended by the TTC, approved
MOTION, passed Mr. Paulsen moved, seconded by Ms. Ulferts Stewart to approve items B1a-B1c on the August 16, 2012 Consent Agenda. Motion carried unanimously.
C. REGULAR AGENDA C1. Consider July Month-End Report (Attachment RA-1)
Mr. Kline said Attachment RA-1 and 1a included the July Month End Budget Report. He said the month end budget report summarized the budget activities of Metro COG through July 31, 2012 by each major program area of the Unified Planning Work Program. He said it also summarized year-to-date personnel related costs against the
484th Meeting of the FM Metro COG Policy Board – page 3 Thursday, August 16, 2012
approved 2012 budget. Mr. Kline noted he had no major concerns regarding the information included within this report.
MOTION, passed Mr. Paulsen moved, seconded by Mr. Waller to approve the July Month End Budget Report. Motion carried unanimously.
C2. Consider 2013-2016 Final Transportation Improvement Program (Attachment RA-2)
Mr. Kline said Metro COG held a public meeting as part of the Transportation Technical Committee (TTC) meeting on August 9, 2012 with the intent to consider the 2013-2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) of the Metropolitan Area (Attachment RA-2b). Mr. Kline highlighted parts of Chapter 1 (the introduction), Chapter 2 which identified the development and maintenance of the TIP, and Chapters 3 and 4 (not included in packets, but available on-line). He explained the public was notified of the proposed 2013-2016 TIP as part of the adopted Public Participation Plan (PPP); and public comments were accepted by Metro COG until 12:00 noon August 14, 2012. He noted the draft TIP was mailed to TTC and Policy Board for review, and comments/changes had been received that would be incorporated into the final 2013-2016 TIP document prior to distribution. He noted these changes were included in Attachment RA-2,
MOTION, passed Mr. Paulsen moved, seconded by Ms. Nash to approve the 2013-2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the Metropolitan Area as detailed in Attachment RA-2b with the changes as noted in Attachment RA-2 as recommended by the TTC. Motion carried unanimously.
C3. Consider the Final 2013-2014 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) (Attachment
RA-3)
Mr. Kline said Policy Board packets included a copy of Metro COG’s Final Draft 2013-2014 Unified Planning Work Program (Attachment RA-3a). He said the Final Draft was premised upon the 40% draft shared with the Transportation Technical Committee (TTC) and approved by the Policy in June 2012. He said since that time, Metro COG had populated the specific projects and program activities with hours to determine specifics costs. He explained that all costs developed for the UPWP were based on Metro COG’s approved 2013 budget, and budget estimates for 2014 and noted no substantive changes had occurred to specific projects and activities since the 40% draft was approved by the Policy Board in June. Mr. Kline said no final rule (or guidance) was yet available regarding MAP-21, but Metro COG had included ample reference to it throughout the Final Draft UPWP. He noted the Final Draft UPWP provided guidance within relevant program areas on how Metro COG would work to attain MAP-21 compliance, etc., specifically related to performance management and system monitoring. Mr. Kline explained that on July 26, 2012, Metro COG distributed the Final Draft UPWP to
484th Meeting of the FM Metro COG Policy Board – page 4 Thursday, August 16, 2012
Mn/DOT, NDDOT, FTA, and FHWA for final comment. He said comments from these entities were still pending. He said the Final Draft was reviewed by the TTC in August at which time they recommended Policy Board approval, contingent upon final comments from state and Federal agencies.
MOTION, passed Mr. Simmons moved, seconded by Ms. Nash to approve the Final Draft 2013-2014 UPWP, pending final comments from Mn/DOT, NDDOT, FHWA, and FTA; with the understanding that if any substantive changes are requested by these agencies, Metro COG would bring the Final Draft back to the Policy Board for additional deliberation and approval. Motion carried unanimously.
C4. Consider Letter / Memo Regarding inclusion of FRA / BNSF Involvement in the
Mr. Kline said Metro COG had determined that it would be beneficial to include a representative of the railroad on the TTC. He explained that Metro COG and its member units of government worked very closely on transportation related issues and often these issues included a needed interaction with the railroad. He felt a railroad representative could either be from the privately owned rail company which runs through our metropolitan area, Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) or the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Mr. Kline said it was decided internally at Metro COG that many of the railroad related projects would benefit from increased interaction from BNSF. Therefore, he said, a letter had been drafted which requested BNSF participation as a member of the TTC (Attachment RA-4a). He noted upon discussion with BNSF, representatives of BNSF said they would not want to be a voting member on the TTC and would only want to participate when railroad issues were part of the discussion.
MOTION, passed
Mr. Ingersoll moved, seconded by Mr. Paulsen to approve signing and sending a letter of request to BNSF to add a railroad non-voting representative to the TTC as recommended by the TTC. Motion carried unanimously.
C5. Update Regarding New Federal Transportation Authorization MAP-21 (Attachment RA-5)
Mr. Kline updated the Policy Board members on Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century (MAP-21). He noted Attachment RA-5a in Policy Board packets summarized some of the key points of MAP-21.
C6. Other Business and Citizen Comment Period
No other business was brought forth, and no citizens in attendance. D. Announcements / Committee or Staff Reports / Correspondence)
484th Meeting of the FM Metro COG Policy Board – page 5 Thursday, August 16, 2012
Attachment D-1: Update Regarding Process for Adjustments to the 2010 Urbanized Area and Functional Class Update.
E. Adjourn
The 484th Meeting of the FM Metro COG Policy Board held August 16, 2012 was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
F. THE NEXT FM METRO COG POLICY BOARD MEETING WILL BE HELD September 20, 2012, 4:00 P.M. AT THE FM METRO COG CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE NORTH 2ND STREET, CASE PLAZA SUITE 232, FARGO, ND.
Respectfully Submitted, Joan M. Geyer Executive Secretary
09/13/12 Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments Council Bills Approval List
As of October 1, 2012
Vendor Name Date Num Description Due Date Accounting Description Amount
702 Communications
09/10/2012 Telephone Estimate September 2012 Internet / local telephone / long d09/20/2012 900i - Telephone 231.35
Total 702 Communications 231.35
Alliant Engineering, Inc.
08/01/2012 53387 ITS Deployment Strategy 08/11/2012 1011 · 2012 ITS Deploymt Strategy 16,102.44
Total Alliant Engineering, Inc. 16,102.44
Blue Cross Blue Shield Of ND
10/01/2012 Employee Health Insurance 10/01/2012 6561 · Health Insurance Premium 3,900.00
To: Policy Board Members From: Peggy Harter, Metro COG Date: September 14, 2012 Re: Consider Amendment to the 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) The Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments (Metro COG) held a public meeting as part of the Transportation Technical Committee (TTC) meeting on September 13, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. The intent of the public meeting was to consider three proposed amendments to the 2012-2015 TIP, as requested by the sponsoring entities as follows: Fargo Transit 1. Amending a 2012 Fargo Transit TIP Project No. 411096 to “Replace one 1997 35-foot
Fixed Route Vehicle with a New Hybrid Bus” from Illustrative to Programmed. Total project cost is $620,000 ($514,000 FTA 5309 State of Good Repair Funds and $106,000 Local Funds).
2. Amending a 2012 Fargo Transit TIP Project No. 412065 for an “AVA/AVL System”. Total
project cost is increased to $347,401 ($50,000 FTA 5316 Funds, $27,921 FTA 5317 Funds, $200,000 FTA 5309 TCSP Funds and $69,480 Local Funds).
3. Amending a 2012 Fargo Transit TIP Project No. 412067 to change the description to
“Expansion of One Paratransit Vehicle.” Total project cost is reduced to $90,000 ($74,700 FTA 5309 Funds and $15,300 Local Funds).
The public was notified of the proposed 2012-2015 TIP amendments as per the adopted Public Participation Plan (PPP). Public comments will be accepted by Metro COG until 12:00 noon September 18, 2012.
The updated TIP Tables that reflect this amendment are attached (Attachment CA-1a - pt. 2).
Attachment CA-1a - pt. 1
Suggested Motion: “To approve the three amendments to the 2012-2015 TIP for consideration at the September 20, 2012 Policy Board meeting, as recommended by the TTC.
Jurisdiction LocationTotal Cost
(Thousands)Description
Funding Source
Project
Table 2-6
Four Year Summary of North Dakota Projects
Status
2012
County Road 20
100.00*Locally Funded Regionally Significant* Reshaping & Subgrade Repair on CR 20 from CR 11 to 5 Miles East
Local112015Cass County Programmed
County Road 4
5,700.00*Locally Funded Regionally Significant* Reconstruction of CR 4 from CR 11 to Drain 13 - Includes Paved Shoulders
Local112010Cass County Programmed
Transit 50.00Miscellaneous Bus Support Equipment FTA 5309412068Fargo Illustrative
Transit 41.00Transit PT Reservationist FTA 5317 Local
412061Fargo Programmed
Transit 60.00GIS/ITS Tools FTA 5316 Local
412063Fargo Programmed
Transit 90.00Expansion of One Paratransit Vehicle FTA 5309412067Fargo Programmed
Transit 95.00Expanded Service, Extended Dispatch Hours, and TANF Project
FTA 5316 Local
412062Fargo Programmed
City Wide 100.00Upgrade Central Traffic Signal Control Software Local412041Fargo Programmed
32nd Avenue S
150.00*Locally Funded Regionally Significant* Construct an Additional Westbound Lane on 32nd Avenue S from 33rd Street to 36th Street
Local412047Fargo Programmed
25th Street 175.00*Locally Funded Regionally Significant* Construct an Additional Southbound Lane on 25th Street from 53rd to 58th Avenue S
Local412048Fargo Programmed
Transit 347.40Automatic Vehicle Announcement & Automatic Vehicle Locator System
FTA 5316/5317 TCSP
412065Fargo Programmed
32nd Avenue N
450.00*Locally Funded Regionally Significant* M&O 32nd Avenue N from 9.5 Street to Eagle Street
Local412046Fargo Programmed
University Drive
460.00*Locally Funded Regionally Significant* Complete Intersection Improvements at University Drive and 70th Avenue South
Local412049Fargo Programmed
Transit 620.00Replace One 40-Foot Hybrid Fixed Route Bus FTA 5309412066Fargo Programmed
Red River 850.00Bicycle & Pedestrian Lift Bridge Over the Red River between Lindenwood and Gooseberry Parks - Priority #1
TE412096Fargo Programmed
Transit 863.00Preventative Maintenance for Fargo Transit FTA 5307 Local
412031Fargo Programmed
Transit 1,240.00Purchase Two 40-Foot Hybrid Fixed-Route Transit Vehicle
FTA 5308411099Fargo Programmed
4th Avenue N 1,500.00*Locally Funded Regionally Significant* Reconstruction of 4th Avenue N from University Drive to Roberts St
Local412045Fargo Programmed
Thursday, August 09, 2012
Administrator
Typewritten Text
Attachment CA-1a pt. 2
Jurisdiction LocationTotal Cost
(Thousands)Description
Funding Source
Project
Table 2-6
Four Year Summary of North Dakota Projects
Status
4th Street 2,500.00*Locally Funded Regionally Significant* Reconstruction of 4th Street from 12th Avenue S to Main Avenue
Local412044Fargo Programmed
Transit 620.00Replace One 1997 35-foot Fixed Route Vehicle with a New Hybrid Bus
FTA 5309411096Fargo Programmed
Transit 60.00Miscellaneous bus support equipment FTA 5309412050Fargo Illustrative
Transit 69.00Funds for Mobility Manager - Includes Project Costs & Travel Training (tied to Moorhead Transit Project #512095)
FTA 5317 Local
412060Fargo Programmed
Transit 261.00Fargo Paratransit Operating Assistance Considered Capital Improvements
FTA 5307 Local
412095Fargo Programmed
Transit 3,026.00Operation of fixed routes, GTC, paratransit, and misc. capital items
FTA 5307 Local
412020Fargo Programmed
Transit 54.00Transit Planning FTA 5307 Local
412030Fargo Programmed
9th St E/I-94 2,527.35Ramp revisions EB (AC paycack of $1.923 Million to Fargo for 2009 construction)
IM909199NDDOT Programmed
10th Street N 3,960.00Reconstruct 10th Street North in Fargo from 12th Avenue North to 17th Avenue North. Includes one striped bike lane on the west side.
STP/R909010NDDOT Programmed
9th St E/I-94 2,527.35Ramp revisions WB (AC payback of $1.923 Million to Fargo for 2009 construction)
IM909200NDDOT Programmed
Main Avenue 16,250.00Main Avenue (5th St E to 45th St in West Fargo) construction project. Project includes pedestrian sidewalk/multi use path.
STP/R911010NDDOT Programmed
Main Avenue 1,250.00ROW for Main Avenue reconstruction from I-94 to Morrison St in West Fargo
STP/R912050NDDOT Programmed
7th Avenue 2,453.00Bridge deck replacement and widening at 7th Ave/I-29. Project also includes widening of 7th Avenue from 36th St to 39th St N for pedestrian facility
BRU912060NDDOT Programmed
2013
Transit 41.00Transit PT Reservationist Position FTA 5317 Local
413061Fargo Illustrative
Transit 60.00Funds for Mobility Manager (tied to Moorhead Transit Project #513040)
FTA 5317413020Fargo Illustrative
Transit 390.00Replace MAT Paratransit vehicles (#1170, #1171 and #1172) with hybrid buses
FTA 5309410032Fargo Illustrative
Transit 898.00Preventative Maintenance for Fargo Transit FTA 5307 Local
413041Fargo Programmed
Thursday, August 09, 2012
Jurisdiction LocationTotal Cost
(Thousands)Description
Funding Source
Project
Table 2-6
Four Year Summary of North Dakota Projects
Status
University Drive North
3,000.00*Locally Funded - Regionally Significant* Reconstruct between 32nd and 40th Avenue North
Local413034Fargo Programmed
13th Avenue South
6,000.00*Locally Funded Regionally Significant* Reconstruct 13th Avenue South between 38th and 44th Street.
Local413035Fargo Programmed
Veterans Boulevard
7,500.00*Locally Funded - Regionally Significant* Purchase ROW and Reconstruct between 32nd and 40th Avenue South (Note: Project to be Funded 50/50 between Fargo and West Fargo)
Local413033Fargo Programmed
Transit 50.00Replace two vans #s 1192 and 1193 for Valley Senior Services
FTA 5309412070Fargo Illustrative
Transit 300.0025th Avenue South - west of University Drive transfer shelter (adjacent to South Kmart) (Note: If route changes occur this project will not be completed.)
FTA 5309412080Fargo Illustrative
Transit 65.00Miscellaneous bus support equipment FTA 5309413012Fargo Illustrative
Transit 25.00Replace one 2010 Valley Senior Services van #1206 FTA 5307 FTA 5309
413014Fargo Programmed
Transit 56.00Transit Planning FTA 5307 Local
413011Fargo Programmed
Transit 271.00Fargo Paratransit Operating Assistance Considered Capital Improvements
FTA 5307 Local
413040Fargo Programmed
Transit 3,146.00Operation of fixed routes, GTC, paratransit, and misc. capital items
FTA 5307 Local
413010Fargo Programmed
NP Avenue 5,000.00*Locally Funded Regionally Significant* Reconstruction of NP Avenue from University Drive to 2nd Street
Local412042Fargo Programmed
I-94 648.96Pedestrian Structure over I-94 2 miles east of I-29 Structure Painting, Structural/Incidentals
IM913041NDDOT Programmed
I-94/I-29 3,400.00NDDOT Fargo District Wide Signing Project IM913045NDDOT Programmed
I-94 160.00Installation of Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) on I-94 at RP 343.0 just west of Main Avenue Exit - East Bound
ITS914020NDDOT Programmed
I-29 160.00Installation of Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) on I-29 at RP 59.5 near 52nd Avenue - North Bound
ITS914030NDDOT Programmed
1-94/I-29 728.00Replace approach slabs and painting at I-29/I-94 tri-level bridge structure
BRU912110NDDOT Programmed
I-94 204.00Concrete pavement repair for I-94 EB lanes from 1 mile west of 45th Street to the Red River in Fargo
IM913020NDDOT Programmed
I-94 267.00Concrete pavement repair for I-94 WB lanes from 1 mile west of 45th Street to the Red River in Fargo
IM913040NDDOT Programmed
Thursday, August 09, 2012
Jurisdiction LocationTotal Cost
(Thousands)Description
Funding Source
Project
Table 2-6
Four Year Summary of North Dakota Projects
Status
Main Avenue 3,750.00Purchase ROW for the reconstruction of Main Ave from I-94 to Morrison Street in West Fargo. Project includes pedestrian sidewalk/multi use path.
STP/R913010NDDOT Programmed
7th Ave E 2,500.00Rebuild as urban 3-lane roadway from 17th St E to 45th St SW
STP/U313010West Fargo Programmed
Main Avenue 157.00Landscaping from Sheyenne St to 45th St STP/TE313020West Fargo Programmed
13th Ave E 535.00Reconstruct existing lighting system from Sheyenne St to 17th St E
STP/U314010West Fargo Programmed
2014
Transit 41.00Transit PT Reservationist Position FTA 5317 Local
414061Fargo Illustrative
Transit 62.00Funds for Mobility Manager (tied to Moorhead Transit Project #514080)
FTA 5317414060Fargo Illustrative
Transit 934.00Preventative Maintenance for Fargo Transit FTA 5307 Local
414071Fargo Programmed
40th Avenue S 3,000.00*Locally Funded Regionally Significant* Reconstruct 40th Avenue S from County Drain 27 to Veterans Blvd
Local414012Fargo Programmed
1st Avenue N 5,000.00*Locally Funded Regionally Significant* Reconstruct 1st Avenue N from University Drive to 2nd Street
Local414014Fargo Programmed
40th Avenue S 6,000.00*Locally Funded Regionally Significant* Reconstruct 40th Avenue S from Veterans Blvd to the Sheyenne River (Note: 50/50 Funding Split between Fargo and West Fargo)
Local414013Fargo Programmed
Transit 250.00New camera system for fixed route buses FTA 5309412090Fargo Illustrative
Transit 1,800.00Replace three fixed route transit vehicles (units 1126, 1127, and 1128) with hybrid buses
FTA 5309413013Fargo Illustrative
Transit 650.00Replace 5 paratransit vehicle #s 1178,1179,1180,1181 and 1182 (2008 vehicles) with hybrid vehicles
FTA 5309411041Fargo Illustrative
Transit 125.00Replace five 2011 Senior Vans for Valley Senior Services unit #s 1160, 1161, 1166, 1190 & the 2011 expansion van (not yet numbered)
FTA 5309414093Fargo Illustrative
Transit 70.00Miscellaneous support equipment FTA 5307414094Fargo Programmed
Transit 195.00Handi-Wheels bus replacement of two unit #s 1189 and 1191 and expansion of one bus
FTA 5309 Local
414095Fargo Illustrative
Transit 300.00GTC Deck Maintenance and Resealing FTA 5309414092Fargo Illustrative
Transit 57.00Planning Activities for Fargo Transit FTA 5307 Local
414080Fargo Programmed
Transit 282.00Fargo Paratransit Operating Assistance Considered Capital Improvements
FTA 5307 Local
414090Fargo Programmed
Thursday, August 09, 2012
Jurisdiction LocationTotal Cost
(Thousands)Description
Funding Source
Project
Table 2-6
Four Year Summary of North Dakota Projects
Status
Transit 3,271.00Operation of fixed routes, GTC, paratransit, and misc. capital items
FTA 5307 Local
414070Fargo Programmed
25th St S 8,000.0025th St S reconstruction and widening including bridge widening over I-94
STP/U414010Fargo Programmed
I-29 520.00I-29 from Wild Rice River to 1.5 miles south of 32nd Avenue Southbound Roadway Concrete Pavement Repair
IM914032NDDOT Programmed
Main Avenue 1,250.00Purchase right-of-way for Main Avenue project between I-94 and Morrison Street in West Fargo
STP/R914010NDDOT Programmed
2015
Transit 41.00Transit PT Reservationist Position FTA 5317 Local
415061Fargo Illustrative
Transit 50.00Replace two Senior Vans for Valley Senior Services FTA 5309415040Fargo Illustrative
Transit 64.00Funds for Mobility Manager (tied to Moorhead Transit Project #515040)
FTA 5317415060Fargo Illustrative
Transit 59.00Planning for Fargo's Transit System FTA 5307 Local
415031Fargo Programmed
Transit 75.00Miscelaneous Support Equipment FTA 5307 Local
415062Fargo Programmed
Transit 293.00Fargo Paratransit Operating Assistance Considered Capital Improvements
FTA 5307 Local
415032Fargo Programmed
Transit 971.00Preventative Maintenance for Fargo Transit FTA 5307415033Fargo Programmed
Transit 3,358.00Operation of Fargo's Transit System Including Fixed Route Service, GTC, Paratransit, and Misc. Capital Items.
FTA 5307 Local
415030Fargo Programmed
I-29 1,293.00I-29 from Christine to 0.5 miles south of 32nd Avenue Northbound Roadway Concrete Pavement Repair
IM914031NDDOT Programmed
West Fargo 17,500.00Main Avenue Reconstruction from I-94 toMorrison Street in West Fargo.
STP/R915010NDDOT Programmed
12th Avenue North
11,454.0612th Avenue North Reconstruction between CR 19 and 45th Street
STP/U315010West Fargo Programmed
Estimated Total Cost 154,726.12
Thursday, August 09, 2012
To: Policy Board From: Peggy Harter, Metro COG Date: September 14, 2012 Re: Consider Contract for 12th Avenue North (45th Street to CR 19) Cooperative PCR and
Design Plans – Phase I (2012 #1014) In July 2012 Metro COG’s Policy Board approved a Request for Proposals (RFP) to be released for the 12th Avenue North Cooperative Project Concept Report (PCR) and Design Plans. Metro COG received four proposals on August 17, 2012 and interviewed three of the proposal teams on August 29, 2012. Pending the review of the written proposals and the project team interviews, the project selection committee is recommending the Benesch and Apex Engineering Team to complete the 12th Avenue North (45th Street to CR 19) Cooperative PCR and Design Plans. The recommended proposal included Benesch Engineering as the lead consultant to complete Phase I, or the planning phase, of the project with a direct contract with Metro COG. Phases II and III, the PCR and Design Plan phases, will be a direct contract between Apex Engineering and the City of West Fargo. A final negotiated contract and scope of work for Phase I is attached (Attachment CA-1b - pt. 2). The attached scope of work identifies which tasks within Phase I will be completed by Benesch, Apex, and/or Metro COG and the study partners. Metro COG and the study partners have agreed to complete the majority of data collection on the project to help keep the overall project cost down. The total project cost for Phase I services is $103,000. This includes $101,254 for the contract with Benesch Engineering and $1,746 for Metro COG to cover public meeting box advertisements and other miscellaneous costs. The Phase I cost is to be split 80% Consolidated Planning Grant (CPG) funds and 20% Local funds to be split between the Cities of West Fargo and Fargo and Cass County. The total funding splits are broken down below: $ 82,400 CPG Funds – 2012 & 2013 #1014 $ 8,240 City of West Fargo Local Match $ 8,240 City of Fargo Local Match $ 4,120 Cass County Local Match $103,000 Total Cost of Phase I Metro COG has designated $80,000 in CPG Funds for 2013 and 2013 #1014 toward the project. Metro COG needs to transfer an additional $2,400 from 2012 #Undes. To 2012 #1014 to cover 80% of the Phase I project cost. The 20% local match ($20,600) of the Phase I project cost is being split 40% West Fargo, 40% Fargo, and 20% Cass County as previously agreed to in a Memorandum of Understanding signed by both City Commissions and the County Commission.
Attachment CA-1b – pt. 1 Suggested Motion: “To approve and sign the attached contract with Benesch Engineering for the total amount of $101,254, and to approve moving $2,400 from 2012 #Undes. CPG Funds to 2012 #1014, as recommended by the TTC.”
1
AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES
BETWEEN
ALFRED BENESCH & COMPANY AND THE
FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into as of September 20, 2012, by and between the Fargo-
Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments (hereinafter called “Metro COG”), and Alfred Benesch
& Company (hereinafter called the Consultant).
WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS, the Metro COG desires to retain the Consultant to provide such services with respect to
Client's project known as the 12th
Avenue North (45th
Street to CR 19) Cooperative Project Concept Report
(PCR) and Project Design Plans – Phase I (the “Project”).
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows:
A. Employment of Consultant and Scope of Work: Metro COG hereby agrees to engage the
Consultant, and the Consultant hereby agrees to perform those tasks and activities as outlined in
the Consultant’s Proposal dated August 2012 (illustrated in Exhibit A), attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference (the “Work Plan”).
B. Time of Performance: The services of the Consultant are to commence as soon as practicable
after execution of this Agreement. All products shall be completed and delivered to Metro COG
by February 28, 2014.
C. Conflicts of Interest: No officer or employee of Metro COG or any other public official of the
governing body of the locality or localities in which the project is situated or being carried out
who exercises any function or responsibilities in the review or approval of the undertaking or
carrying out of this project, shall participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which
effects his/her personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in
which he/she is, directly or indirectly interested, or have any personal and pecuniary interest,
direct or indirect, in this Agreement. Additionally, no member of or delegate to the Congress of
the United States of America shall be admitted to any share or part of this contract or to any
benefit arising there from.
D. Ownership and Use of Documents: Documents, diagrams, sketches, surveys, design calculations,
working drawings and any other materials created or otherwise prepared by the Consultant as part
of its performance of this Agreement are property of the Metro COG. The Consultant shall have
the right to retain copies of all such documents and to make additional copies or reproductions.
E. Personnel & Subcontracting: The Consultant will secure, in accordance with the Scope of Work,
all personnel required in performing the services under this contract. No portions of the work or
services covered by this Agreement shall be subcontracted except as specified in Exhibit A, and
no substitution of personnel shall be permitted without prior written consent of the Metro COG
and cognizant state and federal agencies.
Administrator
Typewritten Text
Attachment CA-1b pt. 2
2
F. Assign ability: The Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not
transfer any interest in the same without the prior written consent of the Metro COG, and
cognizant state and federal agencies. Such restriction shall not apply to any assignment of
earnings by the Consultant, except that the Metro COG shall be notified of any such assignment.
G. Termination of Contract for Cause: If through any cause, either party shall fail to fulfill in timely
and proper manner its obligations under this contract, or if either party shall violate any of the
covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this contract, the other party shall thereupon have the
right to terminate this contract by giving written notice. In that event, all finished or unfinished
documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, and reports or other
material prepared by the Consultant under this contract shall, at the option of the Metro COG,
become property of the Metro COG, state and federal grantor agencies, and the Consultant shall
be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on
such documents and other materials. Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall not be
relieved of liability to the Metro COG for any damages sustained by Metro COG by virtue of any
breach of the contract by the Consultant, and Metro COG may withhold any payments to the
Consultant until such time as the exact amount of damages due the Client from the Consultant is
determined.
H. Termination for Convenience of Metro COG: Metro COG may terminate this contract at any
time by giving written notice to the Consultant of such termination which shall be effective upon
receipt of the written notice. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents and other
materials, at the option of the Metro COG, become property of the Metro COG and its grantor
agencies. If the contract is terminated by the Metro COG, as provided herein, the Consultant will
be paid for services rendered through the date of termination.
I. Additional Services: From time to time hereafter, the parties hereto may agree to the
performance by the Consultant of Additional Services with respect to the Project. Any such
agreement shall be set forth in writing in an Addendum in substantially the form of Exhibit B
and shall be executed by the respective parties prior to Consultant's performance of any services
there under. Upon proper completion and execution of any such Addendum, such Addendum
shall be incorporated into this Agreement and shall have the same force and effect as if the terms
of such Addendum were a part of this Agreement as originally executed. The performance of
services pursuant to an Addendum shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement
except where the Addendum shall control. In all other respects, any Addendum shall supplement
and be construed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
J. Compensation:
1. The total cost to Metro COG for the performance of work pursuant to this Agreement
shall not exceed a total of ninety-nine thousand six hundred eighty dollars and no cents
(US $101,254.00). This amount will include ALL project costs including labor, general
and administrative overhead, fixed fees, travel, materials, supplies, subcontracts, and
miscellaneous.
3
2. The Consultant shall receive payment pursuant to the following:
a. Labor Services
Metro COG shall compensate the Consultant for labor services on the basis of
hourly rates for person hours spent on the project in accordance with the
individual rate schedule outlined in Exhibit A.
b. Reimbursable Expenses
The Consultant shall be reimbursed for actual expenses as shown in Exhibit A.
These costs shall not exceed the amounts shown in Exhibit A.
K. Allowable Costs and Documentation:
1. Allowable cost must be made in conformance with the project description and the project
budget, and all other provisions of this contract, and:
a. Be necessary in order to accomplish the project.
b. Be reasonable in amount of the goods or services purchased.
c. Be actual net costs to the Consultant (i.e., the price paid minus any refunds,
rebates or other items of value received by the Consultant which have the effect of
reducing the cost actually incurred).
d. Be incurred (and be for work performed) after the date of this contract, unless
specific authorization from Metro COG to the contrary is received.
e. Be treated uniformly and consistently under accounting principles and procedures
approved or prescribed by Metro COG for its contractors.
2. All costs charged to the project, including any approved services contributed by the
Consultant or others, shall be documented and supported by properly executed payrolls,
time records, invoices, contracts, or vouchers evidencing, in detail, the nature and
propriety of the charges.
L. Records Access and Audits: The Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with
respect to allowable costs incurred and manpower expended under this contract. All such records
shall be maintained on a generally accepted accounting basis and shall be clearly identified and
readily accessible. The Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of Metro
COG, the US Department of Transportation, and the Comptroller General of the United States at
all proper times to such data and records, and their right to inspect and audit all data and records
4
of the Consultant relating to his performance under the contract; and to make transcripts there
from as necessary to allow inspection of all work data, documents, proceedings, and activities
related to this contract for a period of three (3) years from the date of the final payment under this
contract.
M. Method of Payment: Metro COG shall pay the Consultant on a monthly basis. The payment shall
be made upon the Consultant's submission of a bill for the previous month's expenses and Metro
COGs approval thereof. Such billing shall be made as hereinafter provided in this section.
1. The Consultant shall submit to Metro COG an itemized invoice [identified as INVOICE
FOR (month, year)] for the Consultant’s eligible costs incurred during that month. Said
invoice shall be received by Metro COG on or before the first Tuesday of the month in
which payment is being requested. Metro COG shall remit one hundred percent of the
amount of the approved invoice within thirty days of invoice receipt. Invoices received
after the first Tuesday of the following month will be payable within sixty days of invoice
receipt.
2. For the final payment, an itemized invoice (identified as FINAL INVOICE) for the
Consultant's remaining eligible costs, shall be submitted upon completion of the project
when project deliverables are approved by Metro COG, and state and federal grantor
agencies. Metro COG shall remit one hundred percent of the amount of the approved
invoice within thirty days of invoice receipt if deliverables are approved and the invoice
is received by Metro COG on or before the first Tuesday of the month in which payment
is being requested. Invoices received after the first Tuesday of the month will be payable
within sixty days of invoice receipt.
N. Noncompliance: In the event of the Consultant's noncompliance with this contract, Metro COG
shall impose such contract sanctions as it may reasonably determine appropriate, including, but
not limited to:
1. Withholding of payments under the contract until the consultant complies, and/or
2. Cancellation, termination, or suspension of the contract, in whole or part.
O. Amendments: The terms of this agreement shall not be waived, altered, modified, supplemented,
or amended, in any manner whatsoever, except by written instrument signed by both the parties
and approved by Metro COG and its state and federal grantor agencies. While not anticipated,
any amendments or contract extensions will be negotiated based upon the same rates as indicated
in this contract.
P. Interest of Consultant. The Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not
acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the
performance of service required to be performed under this contract. The Consultant further
covenants that in the performance of this contract no person having any such interest shall be
employed.
5
Q. Publication, Reproduction, and Use of Materials. No material produced in whole or part under
this Agreement shall, during the life of this Agreement, be subject to copyright in the United
States or in any other country. Permission and approval must be obtained from Metro COG and
its state and federal grantor agencies before any report, handbook, electronic media, manual,
intermediate, or final results are published. Draft copies of all deliverables must be prepared by
the Consultant and reviewed and approved by Metro COG and its state and federal grantor
agencies before publication. The Consultant, subject to the approval by Metro COG and its state
and federal grantor agencies, shall have the authority to publish, disclose, distribute, and
otherwise use in whole and part, and reports, data, or other materials prepared under this
Agreement.
a. All published material shall include the following language on the cover page:
The preparation of this document was funded in part by the United States
Department of Transportation with funding administered through the
North Dakota & Minnesota Department's of Transportation, the Federal
Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration.
Additional funding was provided by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation and through local contributions from the governments of
Fargo, West Fargo, and Cass County in North Dakota; and Moorhead,
Dilworth, and Clay County in Minnesota. The United States Government
and the States of North Dakota and Minnesota assume no liability for the
contents or use thereof.
This document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
The United States Government, the States of North Dakota and
Minnesota, and the Metropolitan Council of Governments do not endorse
products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein
only because they are considered essential to the objective of this
document.
The contents of this document reflect the views of the authors, who are
responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein.
The contents do not necessarily reflect the policies of the state and federal
Departments of Transportation.
R. Responsibility for Claims and Liability:
1. Any and all employees of the Consultant or other persons while engaged in the
performance of any work or services required by the Consultant under the Agreement,
shall not be considered employees of Metro COG; and any and all claims that may or
might arise under the Worker's Compensation Acts of any state on behalf of said
employees or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any third
party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of the Consultant, Consultant's
6
employees or other persons while so engaged on any of the work or services to be
rendered shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of Metro COG or state and
federal grantor agencies.
2. The Consultant will indemnify and hold harmless Metro COG, or state and federal
grantor agencies and all of their officers, agents and employees from all suits, actions, or
claims of any character brought for or on account of any injuries or damages incurred by
any persons, organizations, or property resulting from the negligent operations of the
Consultants in prosecuting work under this agreement.
S. Deliverables and Products. The Consultant shall provide Metro COG with deliverables and
product within the established schedule as outlined in Exhibit A.
T. Eligibility of Proposer, Non-Procurement Debarment and Suspension Certification, and
Restrictions on Lobbying. The Consultant is advised that its signature on this contract certifies
that the Consultant and its agent will comply with all provisions of this agreement as well as
applicable federal and state laws, regulations, and procedures. Moreover the Consultant affirms
its compliance with the federal Debarment and Suspension Certification (Attachment 1) and the
Federal Restrictions on Lobbying (Attachment 2).
U. Equal Employment Opportunity. In connection with this proposal, and any subsequent contract,
the Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because
of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, disability, gender, sexual orientation, or status
regarding public assistance. The Consultant will take action to ensure that its employees are
fairly treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, national
origin, disability, gender, sexual orientation, or status regarding public assistance. Such actions
shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer;
recruitment, or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination; rate of pay or other forms of
compensation; and selection for training, including internship and/or apprenticeship. The
Consultant further agrees to insert a similar provision in all subcontracts, except subcontracts for
standard commercial supplies or raw materials. The Consultant will furnish all necessary
information and reports and will permit access to his books, records, and accounts by Metro
COG and/or its representatives including state and federal agencies, for purposes of investigation
to ascertain compliance with non-discrimination provisions of any resultant contract.
V. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE): In the performance of this agreement, the Contractor
shall cooperate with Metro COG in meeting its goals with regard to the maximum utilization of
disadvantaged business enterprises, and will use its best efforts to insure that such business
enterprises shall have the maximum practical opportunities to compete for subcontract work
under this agreement.
In accordance with US DOT regulations, all subcontracts must include the following statement of
DBE policy:
7
1. DBE Policy: It is the policy of the Department of Transportation that disadvantage
business enterprises as defined in 49 CFR Part 23 shall have the maximum opportunity to
participate in the performance of contracts financed in whole or part with federal funds
under this agreement. Consequently the DBE requirements of 49 CFR Part 23 apply to
this agreement.
2. DBE Obligation: The recipient or its contractor agrees to ensure that disadvantaged
business enterprises as defined in 40 CFR Part 23 have the maximum opportunity to
participate in the performance of contracts and subcontracts financed in whole or in part
with federal funds provided under this agreement. In this regard all recipients or
contracts shall take all necessary and reasonable steps in accordance with 40 CFR Part 23
to ensure the disadvantaged business enterprises have the maximum opportunity to
compete for and perform contracts. Recipients and their contractors shall not
discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, age, gender or sexual
orientation, in the award and performance of DOT-assisted contracts.
W. Persons with Disabilities: The Contractor shall endeavor that no qualified disabled individual, as
defined in 29 USC 706(7) and 49 CFR Part 27 shall, solely by reason of this disability, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity that receives or benefits from the assistance under
this agreement.
X. Successors in Interest: The provisions of this agreement shall be binding upon and shall insure to
the benefit of the parties hereby, and their respective successors and assigns.
Y. Waivers: The failure of Metro COG or its state and federal grantors to enforce any provisions of
this contract shall not constitute a waiver by Metro COG or its state and federal grantors of that
or any other provision.
Z. Notice: All notices, certificates, or other communications shall be considered sufficiently given
when delivered or mailed, postage prepaid, to the parties at their respective places of business as
set forth below or at a place designated hereafter in writing by the parties.
Wade E. Kline Jeff Sockel, Division Manager
Executive Director Alfred Benesch & Company
Metro COG 14748 West Center Road
Case Plaza, Suite 232 Suite 200
One North 2nd Street Omaha, NE 68144-2029
Fargo, North Dakota 58102
AA. Merger: This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. No waiver
consent, modification or change of terms of this agreement shall bind either party unless in
8
writing and signed by both parties. Such waiver, consent, modification, or change, if made, shall
be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. There are no
understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding
this agreement. The Consultant, by the signature below of its authorized representative, hereby
acknowledges that the Consultant has read this agreement, understands it, and agrees to be bound
by its terms and conditions.
BB. Metro COGs Responsibilities. Metro COG shall do the following in a timely manner so as not to
delay the services of the Consultant:
1. Designate a person to act as Metro COGs representative with respect to the Services.
Metro COGs designee shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive
information, interpret and define Metro COGs policies and decisions with respect to the
Services.
2. Furnish the Consultant with all information, criteria, objectives, date, schedules and
standards for the Project and the Services.
3. Conduct data collection for the corridor and major intersections to assist with the
preparation of the existing conditions for the study.
4. Examine all drafts, reports, memos, and other documents prepared by the Consultant and
render decisions regarding such documents in a timely manner to prevent delay of the
1.01Data Collection (Peak Hour turning movement counts at 11 intersections to be completed by Metro COG/City staff with Benesch Coordination & Compilation of data) 4 16 20 0 20
1.02 Existing Capacity & LOS Analysis - (11 Int X 2 Time Periods) 6 24 4 34 0 341.03 Develop Future Yr. Volumes & Turn Movements 4 20 24 0 241.04 Future Year LOS - Existing Network 4 12 4 20 0 201.05 Crash Data Analysis 4 10 4 18 0 181.06 Existing Access Inventory 2 2 4 0 41.07 Existing Geometrics, Typical Section, Pavement Condition 2 6 8 0 81.08 Existing Drainage & Structures 0 2 4 6 61.09 Existing Utilities (Sanitary, Water, Lighting, etc.) 0 2 2 4 8 81.10 Existing Railroad Crossings 2 4 6 0 61.11 Existing Ped / Bike Facilities 2 6 4 12 0 121.12 Existing Right of Way 2 2 2 4 6 81.13 Existing & Future Land use 4 6 10 0 101.14 Existing Parking / Transit / ITS 2 4 6 0 61.15 Prepare Tech Memo #1 6 10 6 22 2 2 242.0 Public Involvement2.01 Study Review Committee Meetings (4 Meetings total) 32 10 2 4 8 56 6 12 4 22 782.02 Public Input Meetings (2 Meetings - Includes Prep time) 2 36 16 4 4 20 82 6 8 4 18 1002.03 Website Content Updates to FM COG 2 4 6 0 62.04 Prepare Meeting Summaries as Tech Memo #2 2 4 8 14 2 2 163.0 Issues Identification & Project Purpose and Need3.01 Summary of Corridor Issues from Task 1.0 and 2.0 4 4 8 4 4 123.02 Develop Purpose & Need Statement 6 8 14 2 2 163.03 Prepare Tech Memo #3 8 2 10 20 4 4 244.0 Development & Analysis of Project Alternatives
Total Fee Estimate 72,877.00$ 28,377.00$ 101,254.00$
Estimated Person Hours By TaskPHASE 1 - PLANNING ELEMENTS OF PCR12th Avenue North (45th St to CR 19)
Benesch Personnel Apex Personnel
Project- 12th Avenue North (45th Street Avenue to County Road 19) Alfred Benesch and Company Scope of Work
Phase I – Planning Elements of the Project Concept Report (PCR)
PM Project Management
PM1 Internal Team & Project Development Meetings: Internal team meetings will be held to discuss project status, upcoming tasks, and to provide project updates to Metro COG and their partners.
PM2 Coordination with FM Metro COG: Benesch and Apex will hold coordination conference calls or meeting to discuss project issues and status at key milestones.
PM3 Coordination with Stakeholders: Benesch and Apex will coordinate with stakeholders (Cities, County, NDDOT, Businesses, and other agencies) to obtain current information along the 12th Ave N corridor.
PM4 QC/QA Review of Documents: Benesch and Apex will complete a review of documents and information internally prior to submittal to Metro COG.
PM5 Progress Reports & Contract Administration: Benesch and Apex will provide monthly progress reports to the Metro COG. The progress reports will include a recap of activities completed each month, a summary of the project budget, identify any potential problems that could affect the schedule, and summarize the information or decisions required from Metro COG and it’s partners to keep the project on time.
1 Existing & Forecast Year 2035 Conditions
1.1 Data Collection: Benesch will coordinate with Metro COG to identify the data to be collected. The data to be collected includes the following information:
a. Turning Movement Counts: i. County Road 19
ii. Riverwood Drive/4th Street NW iii. County Road 17 iv. Armour Street v. Strata West Drive
vi. Center Street/Strata Drive vii. 9th Street
viii. 47th Street ix. Fayland Drive x. 46th Street
xi. 45th Street 9th Street intersection will be a 12 hour count to be used in the traffic signal warrant analysis. Metro COG will complete the peak hour traffic counts during the peak commuter periods (AM and PM peak periods.)
b. 24 Hour Machine Counts: Not included in the proposal but additional 24-hour machine counts
would be beneficial to obtain vehicle classification and 85th percentile speed information.
1.2 Capacity Analysis: Benesch complete the traffic analysis for each of the study intersections for the existing conditions. The Study intersections are listed below. Analysis will be completed for the AM and PM peak hour periods. The analysis will be completed using Highway Capacity Manual methodologies.
County Road 19 Riverwood Drive/4th Street
NW County Road 17 Armour Street Strata West Drive
Center Street/Strata Drive 9th Street 47th Street Fayland Drive 46th Street 45th Street
Traffic signal warrant analysis will be completed for the intersections identified having poor levels for the peak commuter periods. The warrant analysis will be completed to determine if a traffic signal would be warranted for existing traffic conditions.
1.3 Develop 2035 Traffic Volumes: Benesch will work with Metro COG staff to develop the projected 2035 traffic volumes. As part of the development of the 2035 traffic volumes, Benesch will use the volumes from the current travel demand model. Benesch will look at historical growth rates along the corridor and the area to use as a comparison to the travel demand model 2035 volumes.
Benesch will work with City and County Planning staff to determine if any proposed developments are planned along the corridor. If new developments are determined to be approved but not constructed, Benesch will review the plans and determine the level of effort to apply the volumes to the corridor.
1.4 Future Year 2035 Capacity Analysis (No Build): Benesch complete the traffic analysis for each of the study intersections for the future year conditions with the existing geometrics (No Build Condition). The study intersections are identified in section 1.2. Capacity analysis will be completed for the AM and PM peak hour periods using Highway Capacity Manual methodologies.
Traffic signal warrant analysis will be completed for the intersections identified having poor levels for the future traffic conditions during the peak commuter periods. The warrant analysis will be completed to determine if a traffic signal would be warranted for future Year 2035 traffic conditions.
1.5 Crash Data Review: Benesch will complete a review of the five years’ worth of crash data along the corridor. Benesch will summarize the crash data into a table and will provide a summary of the crash types that have occurred at each of the study intersections. Benesch will complete the crash rate and critical crash rate calculations for the study intersections.
Metro COG will request the five year crash data from the North Dakota Department of Transportation
1.6 Identify Access Locations: Benesch will provide a review of the access locations and compare them to current access management guidelines.
Metro COG will provide a summary of the access locations located along the corridor.
1.7 Existing Geometrics, Typical Section, and Pavement Condition: Benesch will provide a summary of the existing geometrics at the study intersections, the typical roadway section, and a general summary of the existing pavement conditions.
Metro COG, City of West Fargo, City of Fargo, and Cass County will provide a summary of the current pavement conditions along the corridor.
1.8 Existing Drainage & Structures: Benesch will coordinate with Apex to provide a summary of the existing locations of the drainage structures.
Apex will provide a summary of the existing locations of the drainage structures.
City of West Fargo, City of Fargo, and Cass County will provide available drainage structure information along the corridor.
1.9 Utilities (Sanitary, Water, Lighting, etc.): Benesch will coordinate with Apex for the summary of the existing utilities.
Apex: will complete a visual survey of the existing utilities and review available utility data from the City of West Fargo, City of Fargo, and Cass County. A summary of the potential utilities located within the corridor will be developed for the Existing Conditions chapter of the document.
1.10 Existing Railroad Crossing: Benesch will provide a summary of the number of trains crossing at the existing BNSF crossing on 12th Avenue N.
1.11 Existing Pedestrian/Bike Facilities: Benesch will review the long range plan and any planned corridor improvements that involve pedestrian and bicycle trail connections. Benesch will provide a summary of the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities along 12th Avenue N.
1.12 Existing R/W: Benesch will coordinate with Apex for a summary of the existing right-of-way along the 12th Avenue N corridor.
City of West Fargo, City of Fargo, and Cass County will provide R/W information along the corridor.
Apex will provide a summary of the existing right-of-way along the corridor.
1.13 Review Existing and Future Land Use: Benesch will coordinate with City of West Fargo, City of Fargo, and Cass County planning staff to obtain current and long range land use plans. Benesch will provide a summary of the land use along the corridor.
1.14 Existing Parking/Transit/ITS: Benesch will review the long range plan and coordinate with Metro COG and Metro Transit for changes to their long range plans ITS and Transit. Benesch will provide a summary of the existing parking, transit, and ITS facilities along the 12th Avenue N corridor.
1.15 Technical Memorandum #1: Benesch/Apex Team will prepare a technical memorandum summarizing the existing conditions and future Year 2035 No Build traffic conditions. The memorandum will be prepared as a chapter to be included in the overall final environmental document. The memorandum will be submitted to Metro COG for review by the Study Review Committee, and comments will be incorporated.
Apex will assist with the preparation of the existing conditions technical memorandum.
Deliverable: Consultant team will provide an electronic version of Technical Memorandum for review by the Study Review Committee.
2 Public Involvement The public meeting process will include the attendance of the study review committee (SRC) meetings, public meetings, and commission meeting.
2.1 Study Review Committee Meetings:
a. SRC Meeting (In-person): Benesch will attend two of the study committee meetings (SRC) in person. These meetings will be in conjunction with the public input meetings. Apex will attend each of the SRC meetings in person.
b. SRC Meeting (Webex): Benesch proposes to use Webex or a conference call for two of the SRC meetings. Apex will attend each of the SRC meetings in person and will assist with preparing material for the meeting.
Metro COG will assist with scheduling and setting up the meeting rooms for the SRC meetings.
2.2 Public Meetings: Benesch will attend both public meetings. Benesch/Apex Team will provide a meeting notification/agenda and materials to Metro COG for placement on their website. Benesch will prepare the presentation materials at the meeting (sign-in sheets, comment forms, handouts, meeting displays, and meeting presentation). NDDOT Design Manual process will be followed regarding the public meeting notification and advertising.
Metro COG will release meeting notifications to the media and adjacent property owners.
Apex will attend both public meetings and assist with preparing presentation material. Apex will provide any roll drawings and exhibits of the corridor.
2.3 Website Content: Benesch will provide materials to Metro COG for placement onto their website for upcoming public input meetings.
Metro COG will assist with advertising and scheduling the meeting rooms for the public meetings. Metro COG will provide a summary of the two public meetings.
2.4 Public Participation Summary (Technical Memorandum #2): Benesch will prepare a summary of the public participation process that will be included in the final environmental document. The memorandum will be submitted to Metro COG for review by the Study Review Committee, and comments will be incorporated.
Deliverable: Consultant team will provide an electronic version of Technical Memorandum for review by the Study Review Committee.
3 Identification of Issues and Project Purpose and Need
3.1 Summary of Corridor Issues from Task 1 and 2: Benesch will provide a summary of the issues of the existing and future needs of the 12th Avenue N corridor. The summary will include any issues regarding traffic operations, crash analysis, traffic signal warrants, access management analysis, railroad, pedestrian/bike facilities, land use, parking, pavement conditions, transit, and ITS. Benesch will lead the preparation of the summary of issues.
Apex will provide a summary of the issues regarding R/W, drainage structures, and utilities (water, sanitary, lighting, etc.).
3.2 Develop Purpose and Need Statement: Benesch will work Metro COG, the City of West Fargo, and the SRC to develop a purpose and need statement that will serve the 12th Avenue N corridor.
Apex will assist in developing the purpose and need statement.
3.3 Technical Memorandum #3: Benesch/Apex Team will prepare a technical memorandum summarizing the issues along the 12th Ave N corridor for the existing and future Year 2035 No Build traffic conditions. The memorandum will be prepared as a chapter to be included in the overall final document. The memorandum will be submitted to Metro COG for review by the Study Review Committee, and comments will be incorporated.
Apex will include the summary of the issues regarding R/W, drainage structures, and utilities (water, sanitary, lighting, etc.) into the technical memorandum.
4 Development and Analysis of Project Alternatives
4.1 Develop Typical Sections for Alternatives: Benesch/Apex team will develop a maximum of three roadway section alternatives to be considered for the 12th Avenue N. Corridor.
Apex will lead the preparation of the typical sections for each alternative (Maximum of three). Alternatives will be developed using AutoCAD and Civil 3D software.
4.2 Develop Geometric / Alignment Alternatives: Benesch/Apex team will layout the proposed geometric improvements for the intersections and the proposed alignment of the corridor. A maximum of two geometric alternatives, including intersection traffic control (i.e. traffic signal or roundabout), will be included for each intersection.
Apex will lead the preparation of the geometric improvement alternatives for each intersection (Maximum of two) and the proposed alignment options (maximum of two). Alternatives will be developed using AutoCAD and Civil 3D software.
4.3 Traffic Operation Analysis of Alternatives: Benesch will complete traffic analysis for the proposed alternatives, maximum of two alternatives for each intersection. The traffic analysis will be completed using Highway Capacity Manual methodologies for the unsignalized and signalized intersections. Any roundabout alternatives will be analyzed using Sidra software.
Traffic Simulation Software is available to prepare a visualization of the proposed geometric alternatives but is not included in this scope of service. Benesch can develop a Vissim simulation of any alternative if the SRC and Metro COG feel that it will help explain the improvement (i.e. Roundabout, intersection realignments, or interaction with closely spaced intersections). Benesch would prepare a separate scope and fee for simulation analysis per the request of Metro COG.
4.4 Access Management Analysis: Benesch will complete access management analysis along the 12th Avenue N corridor. The analysis will include evaluating options to reduce the number of access points along the corridor to improve traffic flow. Alternatives could include consolidating, removing, or other access management techniques. Benesch will develop a maximum of two alternatives to improve the number of access locations along the corridor. Benesch will assess at a high level the impacts to the property circulation. Additional analysis for truck turning evaluation would need to be considered at the design level.
4.4a Autoturn Analysis: Benesch will complete Autoturn analysis of the properties where truck circulation is a concern. Autoturn analysis will be completed for any intersection geometric alternative to illustrate how a truck will maneuver through the improvement.
4.5 Review Right of Way Impacts: Benesch/Apex team will evaluate the overall right-of-way impacts along the 12th Ave N corridor.
Apex will lead the review of the right-of-way impacts. Apex will provide a summary of the impacts and identify any potential concerns.
4.6 Drainage and Utility Impacts: Benesch/Apex team will evaluate the overall impacts to the existing drainage system and utilities. A summary of the impacts will be included in the technical memorandum.
Apex will lead the review of the impacts to the existing drainage system and utilities. Apex will provide a summary of the impacts and identify any potential concerns in the technical memorandum.
4.7 Pedestrian/Bicycle Review: Benesch/Apex team will review the pedestrian and bicycle plan to determine how to incorporate into the alternative develop. A maximum of two alternatives will be considered.
4.8 Planning Level Cost Estimates: Benesch/Apex team will develop planning level cost estimates for the proposed alternatives.
Apex will lead the cost estimate task.
4.9 Technical Memorandum #4: Benesch/Apex Team will prepare a technical memorandum summarizing the alternatives developed in Task 4. Development of evaluation criteria will be established at one of the first SRC meeting to equally compare alternatives. The technical memorandum will develop a matrix to compare alternatives. The technical memorandum will include potential environmental impacts identified in Task 5. The memorandum will be submitted to Metro COG for review by the Study Review Committee, and comments will be incorporated.
Apex will assist with the preparation of Technical Memorandum #4 to incorporate graphics of the alternatives and the impacts to R/W, drainage, utilities, etc.
Deliverable: Consultant team will provide an electronic version of Technical Memorandum for review by the Study Review Committee.
5 EnvironmentalImpactReviewofAlternatives
5.1 Prepare and Mail SOV Letters (as per NDDOT): Benesch will lead the preparation of the SOV letters to be sent to agencies for their review of the proposed alternatives along the 12th Avenue N corridor.
Apex will assist with the preparation of the SOV letters.
5.2 Review SOV Responses: Benesch/Apex team will review the SOV response letters.
Apex will assist with the review of the SOV letters.
5.3 Summarize Environmental Impacts in Technical Memorandum #4: Benesch/Apex team will prepare a summary of the environmental impacts for the proposed alternatives. The summary will be included in the Technical Memorandum #4.
6 Evaluation of Project Alternatives
6.1 Develop Project Alternative Comparison Matrix: Benesch/Apex team will develop a comparison matrix to be used in the evaluation process for the SRC. The evaluation criteria will be developed as part of the first SRC meetings. The criteria will be used in developing the evaluation matrix for each alternative.
Apex will assist with the preparation of the matrix for the evaluation of the alternatives.
Total Contract Fee = $101,254
EXHIBIT B
Addendum No. ____ to
Services Agreement
“12th
Avenue North (45th
Street to CR 19) Cooperative Project Concept Report (PCR) and Project
Design Plans – Phase I (2012 #1014)”
This Addendum to that certain Services Agreement dated __________________, 20 , is made
effective as of _______________________, 20_ , by and between the undersigned parties. The
Addendum immediately preceding this Addendum was dated ____________________, 20_ .
1. Services to be provided:
2. Fees:
3. Schedule:
FARGO-MOORHEAD METROPOLITAN
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
By _______________________________________
Wade E. Kline, Executive Director
Dated
Alfred benesch & company
By ______________________________________
Its ______________________________________
Dated ____________________________________
To: Policy Board From: Wade E. Kline, Metro COG Date: September 13, 2012 Re: August 2012 Month End Budget Report & Other Budgeting Items of Note Month End Budget Report Please find attached the August Month End Budget Report. The month end budget report summarizes the budget activities of Metro COG through 8/31/2012 by each major program area of the Unified Planning Work Program. The month end budget report also summarizes year-to-date personnel related costs against the approved 2012 budget. At this point I have no major concerns regarding the information included within the report. Budget Year to Date Based on our year to date expenditures I am anticipating that Metro COG will come in $42,000 under our approved 2012 budget. Our approved internal budget for 2012 was $627,197; at this point I am projecting our actual costs for the year to be approximately $585,000. The reasoning behind this is three (3) fold: 1) Metro COG has yet to fill the vacant 1.0 FTE which was included in the 2012 budget; 2) Metro COG will be losing its non-benefited planning position in mid-September; and 3) Metro COG has managed to keep overhead costs at about 90% of budget. The primary benefit to this budget condition is Metro COG will manage to erase all but $2,200 of the $10,000 originally budgeted in local funding shortfall to match internal operations. However, Metro COG currently needs to expeditiously fill the vacant position to address current and future programmed planning commitments. Metro COG will be releasing a job posting for a Transportation Planner by the end of September. Mn/DOT State Planning Grant I wanted to clarify for the Policy Board the recent decision on the part of the Minnesota Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Directors to adjust the formula used to allocate state planning grant funds provided to MPOs by Mn/DOT. The adjustment in the formula was based on the need to add Mankato as a MPO starting in 2013. Starting in 2013 the addition of Mankato will amount to a reduction in state planning grant funds to Metro COG from Mn/DOT by $4,682 dollars. The real impact of this is felt when you calculate that 80% of these funds, or $3,744, were treated as local match on Federal funds. This equates to a 3% reduction in local revenue starting in CY 2013. While seemingly small, every local dollar in revenue is critical to Metro COG. In order to stay within our local revenue estimates for 2013, Metro COG will need to find a way to eliminate approximately $17,700 in budgeted internal expenses to account for the loss in Mn/DOT state planning grant funds. If you have information or questions regarding the information included herein, please don’t hesitate to contact me directly.
Attachment RA-1
Suggested Motion: “Approve the August Month End Budget Report as presented.”
Attachment RA-1a
Metro COG Month End Budget Summary (August)Unified Planning Work Program Budget Spent % Spent100 - Public Input/Edu., Committee $76,388.00 $47,357.00 62.0%
200 - Data Dev. & Mgmt. $39,478.00 $20,511.00 52.0%
300 - Traffic Model Dev. & Support $16,490.00 $10,603.00 64.3%
Indirect Cost Anaslyis Billed to NDDOT Actual Eligible Difference$137,986.37 $155,156.42 -$9,677.05
Federal & Local Funds Spent (4) Federal Expense (Operating Budget) $264,828.59 Local Revenue Balance Local
Total Local Expense (Operating Budget) $80,674.61 $127,247.00 $46,572.39 (1) Represent internal conducted Federal aid eligible Actitivies(2) Represent non-Federal aid projects/contracts(3) Third party contracts (Fedearal aid eligible)(4) Internal Operations Only (100 - 900)
To: Metro COG Policy Board From: Wade E. Kline, Executive Director Vern Bennett, Chairman Date: September 14, 2012 Re: Recommendation Regarding a Cost of Living Adjustment for 2012
The Policy Board will remember that we held off on a decision regarding a 2012 Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for Metro COG employees until a decision was rendered by the City of Fargo. The City of Fargo didn’t approve a 2012 COLA until 8/10/2012, which included a 2% COLA retroactive to 7/1/2012. In June the Metro COG Executive Committee developed a preliminarily recommendation for the Policy Board to approve a COLA for Metro COG employees in step with a pending action by the City of Fargo. The Executive Committee recommendation at the time was to make the adjustment retroactive to 1/1/12. Our approved 2012 budget includes a 1.5% COLA for all permanent benefited staff, the total budgeted cost of which amounts to $5,782. To follow the original Executive Committee recommendation to match the City of Fargo COLA and also make it retroactive to 1/1/12 would cost $7,012. However, to make the adjustment retroactive to 7/1/2012 would cost $3,506.
2012 Budgeted COLA $5,782.92 2% Retroactive to 1/1/12 $7,012.61 2% Retroactive to 7/1/12 $3,506.31
I did discuss this issue with Chairman Bennett. It was Chairman Bennett’s preference to forward both options to the Metro COG Policy Board for final consideration. As was noted in our monthly budget update, Metro COG is projected to be 7% under budget at year end, thus a COLA retroactive to 1/1/12 would not negatively impact our current budget condition. If you have any questions regarding this matter please don’t hesitate to contact either myself or Chairman Bennett directly.
Attachment RA-2
TO: Metro COG Policy Board FROM: Wade E. Kline, Metro COG DATE: September 13, 2012 RE: Information Regarding Adjustments to the Metropolitan Planning Area & Census Defined 2010
Urbanized Area
Introduction and Background. In March of 2012 the US Census Bureau posted updated Urbanized Area (UZA) information based on the 2010 decennial Census. Based on the 2010 decennial Census the US Census Bureau has identified an updated UZA for the FM (Fargo-Moorhead) Metropolitan area to reflect changes between 2000 and 2010.
The total population of the 2010 FM UZA is 176,676. Of this total, 134,149 is derived from North Dakota and 42,527 is based in Minnesota. With a UZA population of less than 200,000, the FM Metropolitan Area does not meet the threshold required for a Transportation Management Area (TMA). The 2010 UZA for the FM Metropolitan is reflected in Map 1 ( shown on Attachment RA-3a) and compares the 2010 FM census defined UZA against the 2000 FM UZA.
Figure 1- 2010 Fargo-Moorhead Urbanized Area
Population % Split
North Dakota Portion 134,149 75.9%
Minnesota Portion 42,527 24.1%
Total 176,676 100.0%
Pursuant to Federal rules, Metro COG has the ability to propose adjustments to the FM UZA, to form what is commonly referred to as the adjusted UZA. The decision to adjust the UZA has varied impacts on the Federal aid highway system within the FM Metropolitan area. A number of decisions must be cooperatively determined between Metro COG, Mn/DOT, and NDDOT regarding adjustments to the UZA for the FM Metropolitan area.
Additionally, relevant to the discussion of adjusting the 2010 Census defined UZA is a review and preliminary analysis of adjustments to the approved Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) for the FM Metropolitan Area.
The attached memorandum is Metro COG’s first attempt to initiate a discussion of these two items. This item is informational only at this time for the Policy Board, however your input is valued prior to the initiation of more detailed technical analysis regarding the items herein. A final recommendation regarding these items will come back to the Policy Board later in 2012.
Attachment RA-3
Adjusting the Metropolitan Planning Area & Urbanized Area Boundary September 2012/Draft
Adjusting the Metropolitan Planning Area and 2010 Census Defined Urbanized Area Discussion Regarding the FM Metropolitan area Prepared by the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments (Metro COG) Introduction and Background. In March of 2012 the US Census Bureau posted updated Urbanized Area (UZA) information based on the 2010 decennial Census. Based on the 2010 decennial Census the US Census Bureau has identified an updated UZA for the FM (Fargo-Moorhead) Metropolitan area to reflect changes between 2000 and 2010.
The total population of the 2010 FM UZA is 176,676. Of this total, 134,149 is derived from North Dakota and 42,527 is based in Minnesota. With a UZA population of less than 200,000, the FM Metropolitan Area does not meet the threshold required for a Transportation Management Area (TMA). The 2010 UZA for the FM Metropolitan is reflected in Map 1 and compares the 2010 FM census defined UZA against the 2000 FM UZA.
Figure 1- 2010 Fargo-Moorhead Urbanized Area
Population % SplitNorth Dakota Portion 134,149 75.9% Minnesota Portion 42,527 24.1% Total 176,676 100.0%
Pursuant to Federal rules, Metro COG has the ability to propose adjustments to the FM UZA, to form what is commonly referred to as the adjusted UZA. The decision to adjust the UZA has varied impacts on the Federal aid highway system within the FM Metropolitan area. A number of decisions must be cooperatively determined between Metro COG, Mn/DOT, and NDDOT regarding adjustments to the UZA for the FM Metropolitan area.
Key Geographical Terms and Definitions. What follows is a summary of common terms which must be understood when considering adjustments to the UZA.
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)/Consolidated Statistical Area (CSA). Geographies defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for use in tabulating statistical data about metropolitan areas. MSAs consist of the core counties surrounding a UZA, plus adjacent counties with strong commuting patterns to and from the core counties. A CSA combines an MSA and one or more adjacent additional statistical areas defined by OMB. The Fargo-Moorhead MSA is currently comprised of the entirety of Cass County (ND) and Clay County (MN).
Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA). The boundary in which the metropolitan transportation planning process must be carried out. The MPA must encompass the UZA(s) and the contiguous geographic area(s) likely to become urbanized within the next 20 years. In some cases, the MPA encompasses the entire metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or combined statistical area (CSA), as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (23 CFR 450.104). The FM MPA Boundary is
Adjusting the Metropolitan Planning Area & Urbanized Area Boundary September 2012/Draft
currently designated as the sixteen (16) townships which surround the current UZA. Eight (8) townships in ND and eight townships (8) in MN, as shown on Map 1.
Urbanized Area (UZA). A Census-designated urban area with 50,000 residents or more. By its nature, Fargo-Moorhead is a bi-state UZA, with population distributed within the UZA as outlined earlier in Figure 1 and shown on Map 1.
Urban Cluster (UC). A Census-designated urban area with at least 2,500 residents and no more than 49,999 residents. There are currently no Urban Clusters with in or adjacent to the Fargo-Moorhead UZA.
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The designated local decision-making body that is responsible for carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning process. Every UZA must be represented by an MPO (23 USC 134(b) and 49 USC 5303(c)). Metro COG has been designated as the MPO for the FM Metropolitan area since 1972.
Transportation Management Area (TMA). A UZA with a population over 200,000, designated by the Secretary of Transportation. In some cases a UZA with less than 200,000 residents has been designated as a TMA, upon special request from the Governor and the MPO designated for the area. An area designated as a TMA incurs additional planning and programming responsibilities than MPO’s under 200,000.
Determination of the Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA). The determination of MPA boundaries is a State and local decision that should be made cooperatively between Metro COG and the Governors of Minnesota and North Dakota. The MPA Boundary must include the entire UZA boundary identified in the 2010 decennial Census and the contiguous geographic area likely to become urbanized within 20 years. The area likely to become urbanized within 20 years should be determined by Metro COG, NDDOT, and Mn/DOT. If nearby Urban Clusters are likely to become urbanized within 20 years than they should be included.
The MPA may include the entire MSA or CSA as defined by the Census Bureau. The existing MPA boundary does not need to be adjusted if it contains the entire UZA boundary identified using the 2010 Census. However, the MPO may still need to adjust its MPA boundary to include new areas that are likely to become urbanized within 20 years, or to reflect changing development patterns.
The MPA boundaries of current MPOs should be updated no later than the next scheduled long range transportation plan (LRTP) update after October 1st, 2012, or within four (4) years of the designation of the 2010 UZA boundary, whichever occurs first.
Consideration for Adjustment of the MPA Boundary. There are currently portions of the City of Fargo and the City of Horace which extend outside of the current MPA boundary. To Metro COG’s knowledge these areas currently have little or no development, and any meaningful development is not anticipated in the near future. However these communities are participants in the required metropolitan planning process, and these areas are adjacent to existing or future transportation assets of regional significance.
The City of Mapleton, which is currently an Associate Member of Metro COG, is currently half in and half out of the current MPA Boundary. Most of the older developed areas of Mapleton, including all of County
3
Adjusting the Metropolitan Planning Area & Urbanized Area Boundary September 2012/Draft
Road 10 are currently in the MPA Boundary. However the southwest quadrant of the County Road 10/Interstate 94 interchange is outside of the MPA.
Given these incorporated areas are currently outside of the MPA Boundary may serve to limit Metro COG’s effectiveness to address transportation issues in these areas should they arise.
Given the complexities of the transportation system within the FM Metropolitan area, including the commuting patterns present between the rural/exurban and core areas of the MSA, consideration may be needed to add additional mileage of high volume arterial roadways into the MPA. Examples of these would be Interstate 94, both east and west of the current MPA Boundary, and Mn/DOT Trunk Highway (TH) 10 east of the current MPA Boundary.
Metro COG has developed three (3) scenarios to adjust the MPA Boundary to account for these conditions. Scenario 1 would propose no adjustments to the existing MPA. Scenario 2 would be a limited expansion scenario to integrate land areas of communities currently within the MPA whose corporate limits (or portiosn thereof) are outside of the MPA. Scenario 3 would be a more robust expansion of the MPA Boundary to account for growth potential adjacent to the current MPA (including corridor preservation activities and long range transportation planning), bring into the MPA more mileage of key transportation assets (E.g. Mn/DOT TH 10, Interstate 94, etc.) and to consider future potential impacts of the Red River Diversion in the area south of the current MPA boundary. The scenarios discussed herein are more clearly outlined geographically on Maps 2 and 3.
Scenario 1 – No Expansion of the MPA Boundary. Scenario 1 would propose no modifications to the current MPA Boundary.
Scenario 2 – MPA Expansion to Account for Incorporated Land Area. An adjustment to the MPA to encompass the corporate limits of Fargo and Horace which currently extend outside of the MPA would entail the addition of sections 1 through 12 of Pleasant Township; sections 1 and 12 of Norman Township. An adjustment to the MPA to account for the City of Mapleton would include the following additions to the MPA Boundary: Sections 1 and 12 of Durbin Township; Section 36 of Harmon Township.
Scenario 3 – Expansion to Account for Key Transportation Assets. Scenario 3 entails a more robust and progressive expansion of the MPA Boundary to address those conditions listed above, plus to account for key transportation assets serving the FM Metropolitan area.
Scenario 3 would address the corporate boundary issues in the Cass County portion of the MPA discussed earlier more completely by bringing in all of the following townships into the MPA Boundary: Pleasant, Norman, Durbin, and Harmon. Additionally, Scenario 3 would look to extend the MPA to account for the Interstate 94 corridor west of the current MPA Boundary to Casselton Exit 334 by adding the entirety of Casselton Township and Everest Township. Scenario 3 would bring the City of Casselton into the MPA Boundary.
Scenario 3 would bring into the MPA additional mileage of Mn/DOT Trunk Highway 10 east of the current MPA Boundary to just east of its intersection with State Highway 32. To accomplish this feature of Scenario 3 the following townships would need to be added to the MPA Boundary: Spring Prairie, Riverton, Cromwell, Hawley, Highland Grove and Eglon. Scenario 3 would also bring the City of Hawley into the MPA Boundary.
4
Kurtz Township
ParkeTownshipSkree
Township
KeeneTownship
VIDING
EglonTownship
ElktonTownship
TansemTownship
HawleyTownship
Morken Township
MolandTownship
Flowing Township
AllianceTownship
KragnesTownship
GlyndonTownship
OakportTownship
RivertonTownship
ElmwoodTownship
HumboldtTownship
CromwellTownship
MoorheadTownship
Holy CrossTownship
BarnesvilleTownship
GoosePrarie
Township
Spring PrairieTownship
HighlandGrove
Township
Moorhead
DilworthHawley
Barnesville
Glyndon
FELTON CITY
Hitterdal
GEORGETOWN CITY
Sabin
Comstock
8
5
45 3
5 4
7
2
9
11
1
8
1
9
58
4
4
6
2
9
3
9
9
2
6 4
1
98
8
5
2 1
9
8
5
7
7
9
2
8 9
6
3
3
8
5
5
8
9
2
8
3
9
4
4
79
1
2
9
8
8
8
7
1
63
3
1
9
8
6
5
87
2
3
1
1 5
8
1
3
9
7
4
4
2
4
8
1
2 6
8
5
5
8
5
2
3
1
9
9
3
5
12
2
9
26
7
8
4
8
2
3
4
62
7
6 9
1
6
3
9
9
3
5 4
3 1
1
4
8
9
3
2
7
8
93
9
5
4
5
7
8
4
4
4
2
7
3
53
74
66
7
4
7
15
5
43
7
52
4
7
2 6136
3
2
2123
6
6
41 5
1
6
5
1
4
7
6
5
3
6
7
6
7
2
7
6
1
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
7
1716
18
20
33
28
19
25
2936
34
28
34
32
30
19
33
32
30
32
35
14
32
36
18
1210
28
12
35
12
33
25
26
27
25
25
20
27
24
31
24
29
30
25
24
29
10
34
32
33
24
35
28
27
13
12
25
24
26
33
10
25
10
32
17
10
28
29
36
10
13
10
24
36
20
13
13
12
13
24
32
27
18
35
36
13
24
12
29
33
36
24
10
33
34
29
31
25
35
31
30
33
30
10
17
13
33
29
27
34
2526
35
36
24
10
36
36
10
34
18
19
35
28
36
14
26
32
28
34
25
19
26
36
29
27
25
12
27
14
6
26
25
35
35
28
32
15
27
14
27
28
26
30
12
13
28
25
24
28
36
12
25
34
24
28
13
25
35
20 28
10
13
27
35
35
32
25
33
3625
34
26
28
35
12
34
27
33
12
18
36
26
13
10
33
10
10
36
29
27
35
33
33
32
29
35
13
12
25
31
29
36
27
25
28
24
27
26
31
33
29
26
18
24
19
36
35
13
36
34
3229
32
13
2526
20
34
32
12
10
35
26
12
35
12
30
13
17
24
19
29
26
28
29
26
12
35
27
25
13
36
13
17
34
12
3334
33
32
28
17
24
28
19
10
27
13
18
26
10
27
31
27
26
36
27
28
10
32
36
36
13
31
12
26
28
3332
10
34
13
13
26
29
35
29
10
33
34
35
26
35
26
12
29
24
13
34
34
35
24
32
20
30
12
36
26
29
12
34
30
19
12
12
1313
27
28
26
29
3025
24
28
31
24
33
24
27
31
34
32
33
27
32
29
25
34
27
19
13
10
24
25
24
31 34
26
18
12
33 3628
10
29
19
30
17
32
31
30
30
10
3135
18
31
29
18
27
34
19
30
12
32
30
18
18
19
31
28
33
19
18
1919
25
18
20
34
31
17
18
31
30
17
5
333231
7
19
24
4
36
30 31
32
30
19
7 18
35
31
31
6
18
3
18
30
6
34
19
30
31
32
18
19
30
33
18
19
33
30
2
31
18
32
34 35
1
30
19
31
36
18
31
25
32
19
36
31
29
36
18
²0 4 82
Miles
Metro COG has developed three scenarios to adjust the MPA Boundary to account for these conditions. Scenario 1 would propose no adjustments to the existing MPA. There is no Scenario 2 identifiedfor Clay County. Scenario 3 would be a more robust expansion of the MPA Boundary to account for growth potential adjacent to the current MPA.
MPA Adjustments Proposal
Existing Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) Boundary
Scenario 3 MPA Boundary Adjustment
Municipal Boundaries
Principal Arterials
5
31
06
07
11
18
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11 11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
1111
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
30
11
19
06
31
03
07
19
0103 02
04
30
0405 0304
18
0602
18
07
05
05
30
02
31
30
05
19
01
01
31
01 04
24
07
17
02
19
02
22
07
18
31
12
25
03
17
21
17
04
25
04
30
03
36
18
09
16
34
08
03
34
31
18
27
05
08
28
13
04
05
32
09
08
03
35
33
16
15
09
29
22
08
22
34
02
02
17
10
06
19
12
36
02
19
30
20
13
13
36
20
21
22
15
31
34
20
20
17
23
05
26
22
23
15
01
27
17
18
19
33
16
26
02
06
14
26
12
22
10
20
16
17
09
13
09
33
05
33
23
23
13
21
14
34
12
29
09
29
28
15
03
24
21
20
3335
26
21
25
10
01
29
28
32
10
19
35
01
27
24
26
28
33
17
23
08
1208
16
25
34
36
15
29
2529
14
22
21
35
27
08
10
27
35
32
12
17
21
08
36
01
05
35
15
20
12
30
14
29
21
22
35
07
26
22
34
13
32
10
01
17
05
27
24
04
13
08
14
27
20
28
25
262728
2022
27
27
02
34
13
10
34
24
15
28
21
15
28
34
29
30
36
13
14
14
3633
07
28
21
10
17
06
32
09
12
20
2527
23
02
16
09
29
36
17
23
10
08
09
23
15
31
14
32
10
36
32
27
24
01
13
23
23
05
25
20
28
25
33
16
05
25
36
16
22
14
36
35
08
27
35
03
08
32
24
33
20
16
35
16
25
13
29
24
35
02
10
29
15
33
04
12
12
32
29
14
31
32
32
16
29
09
34
34
13
26
34
31
32
34
10
34
30
35
01
26
25
15
15
13
08
24
17
20
36
23
24
15
13
20
10
26
36
29
21
12
03
36
13
35
12
24
33
12
24
17
36
36
21
34
25
09
21
36
21
35
32
23
24 25
14
16
16
14
25
15
34
24
36
36
20
27
24
12
30
32
33
22
33
17
27
35
36
21
26
25
20
1618
08
26
14
22
15
27
09
28
34
09
08
23
21
18
16
21
16
10
22
35
13
20
27
20
35
34
12
22
08
27
25
32
33
29
20
23
21
15
01
33
28
24
09
28
13
10
29
34
07
28
26
26
28
28
26
12 10
14
36
12
22
28
15
03
23
35
24
15
17
01
22
29
04
26
08
30
23
04
08
28
16
17
26
34
32
30
35
24
36
33
16
25
33
13
09
3135
17
08
14
23
22
26
01
23
08
24
09
20
08
26
22
21 23
33
14
27
14
35
10
21
13
35
26
33
15
16
23
33
09
14
26
16
35
09
02
16
1717
28
16
21
09
10
29
09
17
22
22
13
20
22
23
10
25
09
29
33
07
21
12
36
12
28
14
12
25
24
34
09
33
09
26
34
26
27
15
17
14
29
13 23
26
14
35
12
19
26
13
17
24
26
10
18
14
34
12
1714
16
10
01
24
13
28
32
30
08
21
16
35
20
12
32
28
01
25
21
18
07
23
26
15
32
06
28
02
14
29
18
29
35
14
3332
23
13
32
15
27
35
25
18
33
27
08
14
23
19
15
29
02
28
13
03
10
26
35 31
01
3632
24
22
05
04
27
12
23
09
14
02
36
31
10
27
14
30
03
24
32
25
24
29
19
31
20
04
08
31
03
23
02
32
05
19
25
19
20
06
31
19
31
18
07
30
04
23
06
25
07
30
30
06
19
07
19
19
31
07
3106
22
04
30
18
0405
18
07
04
07
30
12
03
24
30
02
03
18
0304
31
07
05
02
19
05
06
31
25
18
19
06
10
06
15
01
18
07
03
04
05
02
06
03
04 03
30
31
01
07
31
0502
06
18
02
01
07
19
01
19
13
18
30
19
30
07
0506
36
18
05
07
07
04
18
06
06 03 02
06
01
31
18
19
19
31
02
30
06
06
07
18
30
12
24
12
25
07
31
30
19
13
36
29
2019
18
01
36
19
13
25
07
06
07
12
31
18
30
18
01
30
32
19
05
24
06
19
06
24
19
FARGO
HORACE
WEST FARGO
AMENIA
MAPLETON
ARGUSVILLE
ARTHUR
KINDRED
CASSELTON
HARWOOD
LEONARD
OXBOW
REILES ACRES
DAVENPORT
FRONTIERBRIARWOOD
NORTH RIVER
PRAIRIE ROSE
Metrop COG has developed three scenarios to adjust the MPA Boundary to account for these conditions. Scenario 1 would propose no adjustments to the existing MPA. Scenario 2 would be a limited expansion scenario to integrate land areas of communities currently within the MPA whose corporate limits are outside of the MPA. Scenario 3 would be a more robust expansion of the MPA Boundary to account for growth potential adjacent to the current MPA.
²0 3 6 91.5
Miles
Davenport Township
NormannaTownship
PleasantTownship
WarrenTownship
StanleyTownship
Durbin Township
MapletonTownship
AddisonTownship
HarmonyTownship
Casselton Township
EverestTownship
RaymondTownship
Harwood Township
Maple RiverTownship
LeonardTownship
WiserTownship
GardnerTownshipGunkel
TownshipArthurTownship
BerlinTownship
Rush RiverTownshipAmenia
Township
Existing Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) Boundary
Scenario 3 MPA Boundary Adjustment
Scenario 2 MPA Boundary Adjustment
Municipal Boundaries
Principal Arterials
MPA Adjustments Proposal
6
Adjusting the Metropolitan Planning Area & Urbanized Area Boundary September 2012/Draft
Scenario 3 would entail adding the entirety of the Interstate 94 Corridor into the MPA Boundary east of the current MPA Boundary. To do so would require the addition of the following townships: Elkton, Barnesville, and Humboldt. Scenario 3 would also bring the City of Barnesville into the MPA Boundary.
Determination Regarding Adjustments to the Urbanized Area. Federal transportation legislation allows adjustments to the Census-designated UZA boundaries (Adjusted UZAs); however, there is no Federal requirement to do so. Metro COG, NDDOT, and MN/DOT may choose to use the Census-designated UZA boundaries without adjustment. As recently as 2006, and prior in 2003, Metro COG in cooperation with Mn/DOT and NDDOT made adjustments to the Census defined UZA to develop the current Adjusted UZA. As noted, Map 1 delineates the 2000 UZA, the 2006 Adjusted UZA, and unadjusted 2010 UZA.
Some Federal transportation programs can be impacted by adjustment of the UZA. Prior to 1992 and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) adjustments to the UZA had significant funding implications when Federal-Aid highway funding included separate apportionments for Federal-Aid Urban and Federal-Aid Rural Systems. These funding classifications were eliminated in 1992 under ISTEA. However as will be pointed out herein, there will be potential Federal funding considerations for a number of peripheral roads based on the 2010 UZA adjustment.
Currently, the Federal requirements for urban versus rural classifications are limited mostly to highway statistical reporting, highway functional classification, and regulation of outdoor advertising. However, the Adjusted UZA boundary may be used to determine eligibility for certain Title 23 funding categories (e.g., Surface Transportation Program funding), and will impact Functional Classification (urban vs. rural). A discussion of the nuances of each follows, with an attempt to provide an initial set of examples as to how adjustments to the UZA may impact certain geographies and roadway corridors within the FM Metropolitan area.
Considerations of Adjusting the UZA. As noted earlier, a few considerations should be taken into account when considering adjustments to the 2010 UZA for Fargo-Moorhead. What follows is an overview of those considerations based on a review of guidance prepared both the US DOT and the US Census Bureau.
Frequency of Adjustments and Process to Formally Approve Adjustments to the UZA. Although there is no specific FHWA policy on how often UZA boundaries can be adjusted, States are strongly encouraged to make such adjustments as infrequently as possible and only when deemed absolutely necessary. As noted earlier, Metro COG adjusted the UZA most recently in 2006, and prior to that in 2003.
Maps showing proposed adjustments to UZA boundaries must be submitted to FHWA for approval accompanied by approval letters from the MPO(s) and Governor(s). The determination of adjusted UZA boundaries is a State and Metro COG decision that should be made cooperatively. All boundary adjustments must be approved by the Governor(s) and FHWA Division Office(s), and are subject to the approval of the Secretary of Transportation (23 USC 101(a)(36) -(37) and 49 USC 5302(a)(16) - (17)). The adjusted UZA boundaries must include the entire UZA boundary identified in the 2010 decennial Census.
UZA Impacts on Highway Functional Classification. The highway functional classification system distinguishes both by type of roadway facility and whether the facility is located in an urban or rural area. A specific type of roadway facility may have different design criteria depending on whether it is in a rural or urban area, but highway design criteria are not applied strictly according to an urban versus rural boundary
7
Adjusting the Metropolitan Planning Area & Urbanized Area Boundary September 2012/Draft
designation. Once the adjustments to UZA boundaries are adopted, highways that are impacted by the new boundaries must be functionally reclassified. Expanding the boundary of urban areas within the FM Metropolitan area may change some rural minor collectors to urban collectors, making them eligible as Federal-Aid highways and in other cases may change funding eligibility for some roadways between urban and rural funding categories (E.g. Rural/County Major Collectors).
As is discussed in a parallel memorandum developed by Metro COG potential adjustments to the 2010 UZA will go hand in hand with an update of the current functional class map for the FM Metropolitan area. Metro COG last updated its functional class map in 2006 in tandem with an interim adjustment to the previously adjusted 2000 UZA.
Impacts to Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funding (including a review of intra state formulas). Federal-Aid highways include all highway functional classifications except local roads and rural minor collectors. Pursuant to 23 USC 104(b)(3) states can consider Federal aid lanes miles as part of the apportionment formula for STP funding within a state. Additionally, some states use the specific classification of a roadway (i.e. urban vs. rural) as a determining factor in its eligibility for STP funds. A number of States have included urban versus rural classifications in their intra-State apportionment formula.
Metro COG reviewed NDDOT and MN/DOT requirements as part of this memorandum to more clearly outline potential impacts to STP funding with in the FM Metropolitan area which may result from the existing and adjusted UZA. Discussion regarding the impacts to the STP program administered by NDDOT and Mn/DOT within the FM Metropolitan follows.
Intra State Formula.
Mn/DOT. Mn/DOT uses Federal aid lane miles as a factor in the determination and development of “Targets” used to allocate federal aid to each Area Transportation Partnership (ATP), including STP Funds. Federal aid lane miles (25% weight) are one of three (3) factors including Bridge Area (10% weight) and Buses (5% weight) which determine System Size, which weights 40% in aggregate of the total formula used by Mn/DOT to determine ATP Target funding. The other factor used by Mn/DOT is System Usage, which weights 60%, and includes vehicle miles traveled (VMT), Heavy Commercial (HC) VMT, and 2025 Population. In total, Federal aid lane miles weight 25% of formula used by Mn/DOT to distribute Federal aid.
NDDOT. NDDOT does not use lane miles of Federal aid highway in the formula to determine intra state distribution of STP funds with in urban areas over 5,000. Population is the base factor in how STP/U funds are distributed within North Dakota largest cities and metropolitan areas, regardless of the UZA boundary.
NDDOT does use mileage of County/Rural Major Collectors for distribution of STP funds among North Dakota Counties. In addition, NDDOT uses land area and rural population as variables for the distribution formula of STP funds to Counties. So if roadways currently classified as Major Collectors in Cass County are included in the UZA or adjusted UZA, these roads would come off the County Federal aid system, and would impact the amount mileage used to calculate the intra state formula for distribution of STP to Counties in North Dakota. Specific potential impacts of this situation based on the 2010 UZA are discussed later.
8
Adjusting the Metropolitan Planning Area & Urbanized Area Boundary September 2012/Draft
Impacts on Eligibility for STP Funding.
Mn/DOT. The UZA, adjusted or otherwise is not a factor in how STP funds are awarded by Mn/DOT through the Area Transportation Partnership (ATP). STP funds are awarded for eligible functionally class roadways for projects to Counties and to Cities over 5,000.
NDDOT. NDDOT uses the Adjusted UZA (in MPO areas) to determine eligibility of a roadway for funding through the North Dakota Urban Road Programs with STP /Urban (STP/U) and STP/Regional (STP/R) funding. Roadways within the NDDOT approved Urban Area are classified as Primary Regional, Secondary Regional, or Urban Roads. A roadway must be classified as an Urban Road to be eligible for STP/U funding. Primary and Secondary Regional Roads are eligible for STP/R funds. STP/U funds can also be used on the Regional Roads.
As will be discussed in the next section there will be a number of considerations in the North Dakota portion of the UZA regarding Federal eligibility of various peripheral roadways which may change from a rural to an urban classification.
Local Considerations for Adjustments to the UZA.
County Road 6, 14, and 17. The 2010 census defined UZA extends the UZA south of 52nd Avenue into the City of Horace. The new UZA now follows the existing developments along the Sheyenne River into the older developed parts of Horace. As such the new UZA will directly impact two existing Rural Major Collectors adjacent to the City of Horace: County Road 17 and County Road 6. If the UZA is adjusted in the Horace area to smooth its boundary, it is possible that another Rural Major Collector, County Road 14 could also be included in the adjusted UZA. Once adjustments are made portions of County 6, County Road 17, and possibly County Road 14 would come off the rural Federal aid system and these roadways would go on the Urban System. Even though these corridors would likely become urban classified roadways, per NDDOT procedure, they would still need to be identified and approved as an Urban Road before they would be eligible for Federal (STP/U) funding.
County Road 20. This same example could transpire for portions of County Road 20 west of Interstate-29 which closely abuts the current 2006 adjusted UZA. County Road 20 is currently an Urban Road from the Red River to the east ramps at Interstate -29. West of the I-29 east ramps, County Road 20 is currently not designated by NDDOT until it becomes a Rural Major Collector approximately 3,100 feet to the west, at its intersection with 45th Street Northwest.
County Road 31 and County Road 22. County Road 31 is currently designated as an on-system road (hence a Rural Major Collector) by Cass County and also as an Urban Road by NDDOT from its intersection with County Road 20 to two miles north. The current adjusted UZA extends all the way to County Road 22 so technically this section of County Road 31 should be listed as only an Urban Road. In addition, a portion of County Road 22 is also in the UZA, and is not currently listed as a County Major Collector. Adjustments to the UZA may take additional miles of County Road 22 off the County Federal aid system. The
9
Adjusting the Metropolitan Planning Area & Urbanized Area Boundary September 2012/Draft
pending updates to the functional class map for the FM Metropolitan area need to address this situation with County Road 20 and 31.
Additional Considerations. It is important to remember that this memorandum only serves as the first step in the process. There are additional nuances and variances in locally developed and state approved Federal aid highway designations (classifications). An example being the classification of County Road 6 (52nd Avenue South) by Cass County as an on-system road, when in fact this road is in the UZA. Additionally, there are several regionally significant corridors in the current UZA which are not currently recognized by NDDOT as functionally classified Urban Roads (E.g. Veterans Boulevard, portions of 52nd Avenue South, etc.) As is outlined in a parallel memorandum, substantial analysis will be conducted over the coming months to ensure consistency between local and state classifications of the Federal aid highway system based on the adjusted 2010 UZA.
Control of Outdoor Advertising
The Outdoor Advertising Control Program (23 USC 131) uses the UZA definition in 23 USC 101(a)(36) to specify certain controls regarding outdoor advertising. Pursuant to 23 USC 131 states must ensure that outdoor advertising is controlled outside of 660’ of the right of way adjacent to the Federal aid primary system outside of urban areas. ND Century Code 24.17.03 and MN State Statute 173 address these requirements. Adjustments to the UZA will have impacts on the applicability of these regulations for existing or future outdoor advertising outside of 660’ of the right of way outside of the UZA. In effect changes to the UZA would reduce the amount of relevant Federal aid lane mileage applicable to this provision adjacent to the FM Metropolitan area.
10
To: Metro COG Policy Board From: Wade E. Kline, Metro COG Date: September 14, 2012 Re: Update from Mn/DOT District 4 Earlier this year Jody Martinson was appointed District Engineer for Mn/DOT District 4. Ms. Martinson has been with District 4 for several years, so the Policy Board is likely familiar with her excellent track record working with local units of government throughout District 4. I have asked Ms. Martinson to provide a brief update to the Metro COG Policy Board to apprise you of recent or ongoing initiatives, projects, and activities of Mn/DOT District 4, specifically related to Moorhead, Dilworth, and Clay County. Ms. Martinson will have information and materials to share, and she is welcoming input and questions from the Metro COG Policy Board. Metro COG has worked successfully with Mn/DOT over the past several years championing several critical studies that have resulted in on the ground investments. Please look forward to an informational discussion with Ms. Martinson.
Attachment RA-4
To: Metro COG Policy Board From: Wade E. Kline, Metro COG Date: September 13, 2012 Re: Overview of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) – FTA Elements As we discussed at the August Policy Board meeting, P.L. 112-141, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) was signed into law on July 6, 2012. MAP-21 replaces SAFETEA-LU (which technically expired September 30, 2009) on 10/1/2012. MAP-21 authorizes surface transportation programs through 9/30/2014, at about the same funding levels of FY 2012. Now that the legislative process has concluded the Federal Highway Administrative (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) will initiate the rule making process regarding MAP-21. Once FHWA/FTA issue their final rule on MAP-21 Metro COG will initiate an aggressive program to come into compliance with new provisions of the law. The rule making process will likely take twelve (12) to fifteen (15) months, on the short end. However, new guidance and clarification on the MAP-21 is being released frequently from both FHWA and FTA. To note Metro COG is posturing through our 2013-2014 UPWP and the pending update of our Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) to ensure compliance with MAP-21. You will recall that at the August Policy Board meeting you were provide an information overview of the FHWA elements of MAP-21. To complete this discussion regarding FTA elements I have attached an overview memorandum developed by Metro COG regarding detailed analysis of the FTA related changes pending with MAP-21 (Attachment RA-5a), specifically as they programs funded with 49 U.S.C Section 53 in the FM Metropolitan area. I will discuss these highlighted elements with the Policy Board in September. In the months ahead we will learn more about how MAP-21 will specifically impact the surface transportation program in the FM Metropolitan area. If you have questions or comments regarding this item in the interim, please contact me directly.
Attachment RA-5
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP‐21) Effects on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Programs Related to Chapter 53 – (of) U.S.C. Title 49 Considerations and Implication for the Fargo‐Moorhead Metropolitan area
Prepared: August 16, 2012; Updated: September 7, 2012
Prepared by the Fargo‐Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments (Metro COG)
Administrator
Typewritten Text
Attachment RA-5a
1 MAP‐21 Effects on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Programs
Urbanized Area Program ‐ Section 5307
Section 5307 funds are awarded directly to areas with a population over 50,000, also known as Urbanized Areas. Areas with a population over 50,000 are designated by the Census Bureau as Urbanized Areas. Fargo‐Moorhead is currently one (1) contiguous census defined urbanized area. However FTA disaggregates Section 5307 funds based on the Minnesota and North Dakota portion of the urbanized area. Therefore the City of Fargo and the City of Moorhead are currently direct (designated) recipients of Section 5037 funds. While only Fargo and Moorhead are direct recipients of Section 5307 funds, the formula (as discussed below) for how urbanized area funds are awarded is based also on the populations of other metropolitan cities such as West Fargo (ND) and Dilworth (MN). The North Dakota portion of the FM Urbanized contains population from Fargo, West Fargo, and Horace. The Minnesota portion of the FM Urbanized area contains population from Moorhead, Dilworth, and Oakport Township. Figure 1 demonstrates the population within the FM Urbanized Area.
Figure 1 2010 Fargo‐Moorhead Urbanized Area
Population % Split
North Dakota Portion 134,149 75.9%
Minnesota Portion 42,527 24.1%
176,676 100%
Urbanized Area or Section 5037 funds are apportioned to urbanized areas based on a formula developed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), as follows:
a. 9.32% of total funds appropriated each fiscal year to go urbanized areas of less than 200,000; b. Of the amount in a., 50% are apportioned based on a ratio of the specific urbanized area
population divided by the total urbanized area population of all urbanized areas under 200,000; c. Of the amount in a., 50% multiplied by a ratio for the area based on population weighted by a
factor of the number of inhabitants per square mile.
Figure 2 demonstrates the apportionments of Urbanized Area funds for the City of Fargo and Moorhead, comparing FY 2012 to FY 2013 (MAP‐21 takes effect with FY 2013).
Figure 2 Urbanized Area Formula (Section 5307) Apportionments
2012 2013 Change
Fargo $1,880,979 $2,133,885 $252,906
Moorhead $556,572 $663,944 $107,372
One change made to the Section 5307 program under MAP ‐21 is the consolidation of the Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) Program into the urbanized area program; in essence the JARC program is eliminated. The JARC program was developed as part of the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st
2 MAP‐21 Effects on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Programs
Century (TEA‐21) in 1997 as a companion program to related efforts regarding welfare reform. JARC funds were aimed at improving access to employment and employment related activities, and were to be geared towards niche or innovative services which served to fill identified gaps or needs outside of traditional public transit services. Under TEA ‐21 the JARC program was a purely discretionary; however under the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA‐LU) in 2005 the program was apportioned to both urbanized and non‐urbanized areas in both cases administered by a State DOT through a statewide solicitation.
Under TEA‐21, Metro COG was awarded $297,000 in JARC funds through a Congressional earmark to meet identified transportation needs in the FM Metropolitan Area, pursuant to the 2003 Job Access Plan. These funds were competitively awarded throughout the FM Metropolitan area by Metro COG to fund a total of twelve (12) projects over a four (4) year period. Under SAFETEA‐LU, Fargo and Moorhead have been awarded JARC funds by their respective DOTs to meet a number of locally developed needs, pursuant to needs identified through the metropolitan planning program. Since 2007 Fargo and Moorhead have been jointly awarded $416,416 in JARC funds (through FY 2011) to meet locally identified transportation needs.
There are two (2) primary advantages to consolidating the JARC program into the Urbanized Area program:
1. The consolidation of JARC funds serves to slightly increase the apportionment of Section 5307 funds, as shown in Figure 2;
2. Direct apportionment through the Section 5307 program removes the step of developing applications and applying for JARC funds through the MPO and DOT.
Consolidation of the JARC program into Section 5307 appears to remove the requirement that JARC projects be identified through the development of the coordinated public transit‐human service transportation plan. This may remove the ability for social and human service agencies to apply innovative insight into program/project design to meet certain unique transportation needs.
MAP‐21 gives flexibility to Section 5307 recipients by allowing special provisions to urbanized areas over 200,000, allowing for the continuation of Urbanized Area funds to be used for fixed route operations. Prior to MAP‐21, urbanized areas over 200,000 (areas designated as Transportation Management Areas [TMAs]) were required to expend their Section 5307 funds on non‐operating costs (i.e. capital projects, etc.). Under MAP‐21, transit operators with fewer than 100 buses (operating in the peak) are allowed to continue use Section 5307 funds for operations at varying levels (percentages) depending on fleet size. This factor if kept in place beyond MAP‐21 will benefit to the FM Metropolitan area after the next decennial census when we are projected to be over 200,000 in population and become a TMA.
Issues Specific to the North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT)
NDDOT has not fully allocated remaining FY 2011 and FY 2012 JARC Funds. Clear guidance is needed from NDDOT on how and when these funds will be made competitively available.
3 MAP‐21 Effects on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Programs
Issues Specific to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
No specific issues regarding this program have been identified for Mn/DOT.
Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities ‐ Section 5310
MAP‐21 consolidates the old Section 5310 program which was focused on the special needs of elderly and disabled with the old New Freedom (Section 5317) program (which was focused on enhanced ADA eligible services). Under MAP‐21 Section 5310 now puts a renewed focus on enhanced mobility for seniors and individuals with disabilities. MAP‐21 apportions Section 5310 funds for both urbanized and non‐urbanized areas. For urbanized areas under 200,000, State DOTs will serve as the recipient and award funds to eligible grantees through as a competitive statewide application process.
Eligible uses for Section 5310 Funds include transit capital and operating funds for entities that provide transportation for seniors and individuals with disabilities. In the FM Metropolitan area Section 5310 funds could be targeted to entities such as Valley Senior Services, Handi Wheels, or other smaller non‐profit providers, etc., for capital or operating related purchases. There is also a continued need in the FM Metropolitan area to use Section 5310 funds to support the ongoing Mobility Management program at MATBUS, which is cooperatively developed and implemented by Fargo and Moorhead. The mobility management program at MATBUS has been traditionally funded with old Section 5317 (New Freedom) funds. Since 2007, New Freedom funds have supported $293,000 in coordinated mobility management related activities between the City of Fargo and the City of Moorhead.
Projects funded with Section 5310 funds need to be tied to projects (needs) identified through the development of the coordinated public transit‐human service transportation plan. The 2012‐2016 Transit Development Plan (TDP) serves as Metro COG’s coordinated public transit‐human service transportation plan. The TDP outlines programs such as a Community Capital Assistance Program (CCAP) and Coordinated Service Development Initiative (CSDI) which would work to support and foster innovation among smaller transportation providers to enhance mobility options for seniors and individuals with disabilities in the FM Metropolitan area through programs such as Section 5310.
Issues Specific to the North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT)
Prior to MAP‐21 Section 5310 has been awarded only in non‐urbanized areas in North Dakota, this per the policy of NDDOT. Therefore metropolitan areas such as Bismarck, Fargo, and Grand Forks were not eligible to apply for Section 5310 funds through NDDOT. The development of an urbanized area apportionment for Section 5310 will require NDDOT to change its policy for how it allocates Section 5310 funds. Recently completed Metro COG planning efforts have identified significant need for Section 5310 eligible projects in the Fargo, specifically for Day Training and Habilitation (DTH) program providers. It was estimated in 2007 that almost 30% of demand on MAT Paratransit is generated by DTH related ridership. The use of Section 5310 funds in the FM Metropolitan area may serve to reduce demand on MAT Paratransit by providing capital and operating capacity to smaller non‐profit providers of public transportation.
4 MAP‐21 Effects on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Programs
Under MAP‐21 NDDOT will receive an apportionment of $380,000 in Section 5310 for use in the three (3) urbanized areas throughout the state. This compares to only $126,000 NDDOT was apportioned annually under the old Section 5317 (New Freedom Program).
Under MAP‐21 NDDOT will see its rural Section 5310 apportionment increase from $400,000 to over $1,800,000 for non‐urbanized rural areas. Figure 3 provides a comparative summary of Section 5310 and old Section 5317 funding in North Dakota between FY 2012 and FY 2013.
Figure 3 Elderly & Disabled Program ‐ Section ‐ 5310 Apportionments (North Dakota)
New Freedom‐ Section 5317 $125,918 consolidated ‐$125,918
Total Urban Program $125,918 $379,445 $253,527
MAP‐21 stipulates that the approved recipient (either NDDOT or Mn/DOT) must spend at least 55% of their apportionment on capital projects. Section 5310 will fund capital projects at 80% Federal; and operating projects at 50% Federal.
Issues Specific to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
Traditionally Mn/DOT has used Section 5310 to support non‐profit human service agencies through the purchase of rolling stock. Mn/DOT has traditionally sub allocated (awarded) approximately one (1) Section 5310 funded vehicle to District 4 each year. Typically these recipients are DTH program providers.
Under MAP‐21 Mn/DOT will be apportioned $600,000 in Section 5310 funds to award within the six (6) urbanized areas in Minnesota, which includes Moorhead. This will be in addition to the $670,000 in Section 5310 funds apportioned to Mn/DOT for non‐urbanized areas in the state. For comparison, in FY 2012 under SAFETEA‐LU, Mn/DOT was apportioned only $177,000 in New Freedom Funds (old Section 5317) for urbanized areas in Minnesota.
Figure 4 Elderly & Disabled Program ‐ Section ‐ 5310 Apportionments (Minnesota) Statewide/Rural Program 2012 2013 Change*
New Freedom‐ Section 5317 $177,000 consolidated ‐$177,000
Total Urbanized Areas $177,000 $593,496 $416,496
* Under MAP‐21 Minneapolis‐St. Paul receives their own Section 5310 apportionment of $1.757 million
Bus & Bus Facilities ‐ Section 5339
The Section 5339 program replaces the old Section 5309 Program which up through FY 2010 was completely earmarked by Congress. For FY 2011 and FY 2012 Section 5309 transitioned to a more competitive grant program. Under the new Section 5339 Program funds are apportioned to urbanized areas and states. Each state receives a minimum of $1,250,000 for uses statewide. Under MAP‐21 each urbanized area receives an apportionment based on formula outlined in Section 49 USC 5336, which is identical to the formula discussed regarding Section 5307 funds under the Urbanized Area program (Section 5307).
The Section 5339 apportionment under MAP‐21 for the FM Urbanized Area is $309,892. This is a combined apportionment based on the entire bi‐state urbanized area. FTA has not disaggregated this funding.
Under MAP‐21 each state has the flexibility to transfer its statewide apportionment ($1,250,000) as it sees fit. So for example, the statewide apportionment does not appear to be reserved strictly as a statewide or strictly non‐urbanized area allocation. This nuance will be important particularly in the State of North Dakota.
Issues Specific to the North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT)
Between 2000 and 2010, the State of North Dakota was awarded (by Congressional earmark) approximately $30,000,000 in former Section 5309 funds. During this time and as part of that amount, the City of Fargo received an average of approximately $1,000,000 annually in old Section 5309 funds for bus and bus related capital; or a total of $10,830,000. These funds were critical to the upgrade and expansion for the Fargo bus fleet, were instrumental in construction of the Metro Transit Garage (MTG) and the storage facility of Valley Senior Services. Figure 5 (next page) demonstrates historic funding under the old Section 5309 program, MAP‐21 apportionments for the new Section 5339 program, and the estimated annual need of North Dakota’s urbanized transit operators.
Remainder of this page left blank
6 MAP‐21 Effects on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Programs
Figure 5 Section 5339 ‐ Historic Transit Capital Awards/ MAP‐21 Apportionment/Projected Need
Urbanized Area Annual Average 2000‐
2010 MAP‐21
Apportionment* Estimated Need 2013‐
2016
Fargo ** $232,419 $1,580,300
Grand Forks ** $107,584 $614,520
Bismarck ** $130,908 $500,000 Total Urbanized Area ** $470,911 $2,694,820
Statewide/Rural $2,900,000 $1,250,000 $2,000,000
Total ** $1,720,911 $4,694,820
* Fargo's apportionment is prorated based on the ND share of the urbanized area ** Summed as part of Statewide Award
Based on recent statewide capital needs developed in cooperation between Metro COG and NDDOT, there is an average annual need in North Dakota for $4,694,820 in Section 5339 funds between 2013‐2016. About 60% of this need is in the three (3) metropolitan areas. More locally, Fargo has an estimated annual need of approximately $1,580,300 over the next four (4) Federal fiscal years.
The amount of Section 5339 funds apportioned to North Dakota’s urbanized areas will be far less than is required to meet historic and projected capital needs. It will be imperative for North Dakota’s metropolitan areas to advocate for the use of the $1,250,000 to be used as part of a statewide program including urbanized areas. Support for such a program can likely be justified given the measurable increases seen in the Section 5310 and Section 5311 programs for rural areas in North Dakota as discussed herein.
Issues Specific to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
For Mn/DOT the $1,250,000 annual apportionment of Section 5339 funding is an inconsequential amount of funding in context to the overall state. Traditionally most large transit operators in Minnesota (Duluth, St. Cloud, etc.) have depended on discretionary allocations of Section 5309 funds under TEA‐21 and SAFETEA‐LU. These larger operators in Minnesota have also benefited from sub targeted Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds through the Area Transportation Partnership (ATP) process for large capital needs. This is not the case in ATP 4 which is dominated by smaller rural operators.
Mn/DOT’s ATP 4 typically only sub targets Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to satiate the need of most rural and the one (1) urbanized transit operators in District 4, which is Moorhead. For ATP 4, this amounts to approximately 420,000 annually. The STP sub target for District 4 only meets the needs of Moorhead Paratransit vehicle needs, approximately $70,000 every two (2) to three (3) years. Moorhead is not able to depend on ATP 4 STP sub targets for large capital purchases.
Moorhead has used Section 5309 funds for major capital or capital related expenses, the two (2) largest being a replacement of two (2) of its nine (9) fixed route vehicles between 2003‐2005; and again in 2006 to assist with the Metro Transit Garage (MTG). During its last vehicle replacement process in 2003‐2005
7 MAP‐21 Effects on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Programs
Moorhead also used Section 5307 and STP funds. Figure 6 demonstrates historic funding under the old Section 5309 program, MAP‐21 apportionments for the new Section 5339 program, and estimated annual need of Moorhead.
Figure 6 Section 5339 ‐ Historic Transit Capital Awards/ MAP‐21 Apportionment/Projected Need
Total Award 2003‐2010* MAP‐21 Apportionment** Total Need FY 2015‐2017
Moorhead $3,075,000 $74,374 $3,060,000
* Includes $700,000 in STP Funds for two (2) Fixed Route Vehicles
** Prorated Apportionment based on urbanized area population
Moorhead will need to be creative over the coming years to ensure it is able meet its capital needs, which almost exclusively relate to the staggered replacement of nine (9) of its ten (10) fixed route vehicles between FY 2015‐2017. Moorhead may again need to work with Mn/DOT to secure STP funds for capital replacement needs of larger fixed route transit vehicles. Moorhead and Metro COG may also need to work with ATP 4 regarding a larger sub target of STP funds for transit capital over the years of 2015‐2017.
Small Transit Intensive Community Formula
MAP‐21 continues a provision from SAFETEA‐LU for the Small Transit Intensive Cities (STIC) grant program. The STIC program awards performance based funding to transit operators in urbanized areas between 50,000 and 200,000 who can meet the average performance of transit operators in urbanized areas between 200,000 and 999,000.
The criteria are passenger miles traveled per vehicle revenue mile; passenger miles traveled per vehicle revenue hour; vehicle revenue miles per capita; vehicle revenue hours per capita; passenger miles traveled per capita; and passenger trips per capita. Transit operators are eligible for an additional $218,747 in operating assistance (pursuant to Section 5307) for each performance metric it is able to meet.
Fargo is close to meeting three (3) of the five (5) performance factors of the STIC formula grant requirements. Figure 7 (next page) demonstrates Fargo’s operating statistics compared to the average performance metrics established by FTA. Figure 7 also demonstrates peer systems, such as St. Cloud (MN) and Bismarck (ND). No data is currently reported by FTA for Moorhead; an inquiry to FTA has been submitted.
Remainder of this page left blank
8 MAP‐21 Effects on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Programs
Figure 7 Small Transit Intensive Cities Formula
Performance Metric
Passenger miles/vehicle revenue mile
Passenger miles/vehicle
revenue hour
Vehicle revenue
miles/capita
Vehicle Revenue
hour/capita Passenger miles/capita
Passenger trips/capita
Factors met or Exceeded
STIC Funding = $218,747/factor
met
Average for urbanized areas 200,000 ‐ 999,999) 6.536 109.294 12.609 0.819 97.343 16.388 x x
Future planning efforts on the part of MATBUS and Metro COG should focus on developing a clearer understanding of the cost‐benefit of trying to meet the performance metric in order to secure STIC formula funding. This work can likely be integrated in future MAP‐21 compliance efforts (as discussed below) or done as part of a separate technical assistance planning item with in Metro COG’s UPWP.
Formula Grants for Rural Areas – Section 5311
Section 5311 funds are apportioned to states for transit operations in non‐urbanized (rural) areas. In North Dakota there are approximately 30 rural transit operators who are awarded Section 5311 funding through NDDOT. Valley Senior Services currently provides rural public transit to a multi‐county area which includes Cass County. Both Fargo and Valley Senior Services have lobbied NDDOT to transfer Section 5311 to the 5307 program to meet additional needs in the Fargo urbanized area. These efforts were unsuccessful.
In Minnesota rural and small urban public transit is provided in all but eleven (11) counties with Section 5311 funding apportioned to Mn/DOT through fifty‐two (52) rural and small urban transit providers. In many cases rural and small urban transit in Minnesota is provided via multi‐county operators. Productive Alternatives currently operates a multi‐county system which includes Clay County, and portions of the FM Urbanized area.
Figure 8 Section 5311 Rural Formula Grants
State 2012 2013 Change
North Dakota $4,098,445 $4,962,111 $863,666
Minnesota $12,767,441 $14,976,196 $2,208,755
Remainder of this page left blank
9 MAP‐21 Effects on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Programs
Issues Specific to the North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT)
As shown in Figure 8 (prior page), NDDOT will see an increase of $863,666 in Section 5311 under MAP‐21. The size of the rural apportionment to North Dakota could influence decisions regarding Section 5310 and Section 5339 as discussed earlier, as follows:
1) Freeing up non‐urbanized Section 5310 dollars for urbanized area; 2) Freeing up Section 5339 statewide dollars for urbanized areas.
Issues Specific to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
Discussions with Mn/DOT are needed to determine if funding currently awarded to Productive Alternatives for service in and around the FM Urbanized area could be more effectively met by either MATBUS or Valley Senior Services. Since Clay County lost control of the rural transit contract (2011), there has been little local input into the operational decisions being made by Productive Alternatives.
Performance Management
MAP‐21 will require that transit operators (in cooperation with MPOs) develop performance measures for state of good repair, planning, and safety. FTA will define state of good repair, and all transit operators are required to develop their own asset management plan, covering all transit modes. These new planning and asset management requirements will need to be developed in cooperation with Metro COG’s Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP). In general, and in specific to public transit, Metro COG and MATBUS will need to establish performance targets regarding all facets of transit operations over the next 12 to 18 months.
Summary
In the near future Metro COG will be working with MATBUS, NDDOT, and Mn/DOT to develop a detailed action plan to address new requirements of MAP‐21. As part of this effort additional work will be needed by Metro COG and MATBUS to ensure local transportation needs can be met with in the funding parameters established by MAP‐21. Metro COG will report back through its Policy Board and the MAT Board as we initiate these items.
