HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090629 - CC Agenda SPECIAL
ìçúðóù îíèóù÷
ùÓÈÃ ÍÖ ôÛÉÈÓÎÕÉ
éÌ×ÙÓÛÐ ùÓÈà ùÍÇÎÙÓÐ ï××ÈÓÎÕ
ïÍÎØÛà òÇÎ×
ìï
ôÛÉÈÓÎÕÉ ùÓÈÃ ôÛÐÐ
îÍÈÓÙ× ÓÉ Ô×Ê×Úà ÕÓÆ×Î ÈÔÛÈ ÈÔ× ôÛÉÈÓÎÕÉ ùÓÈà ùÍÇÎÙÓÐ ÅÓÐÐ ÙÍÎØÇÙÈ Û éÌ×ÙÓÛÐ ùÓÈÃ
ùÍÇÎÙÓÐ ï××ÈÓÎÕ ÍÎ ïÍÎØÛà òÇÎ×
ÛÈ ôÛÉÈÓÎÕÉ ùÓÈÃ ôÛÐÐ èÔ×
ÌÊÍÌÍÉ×Ø ÛÕ×ÎØÛ ÖÍÊ ÈÔ× Ï××ÈÓÎÕ ÅÓÐÐ Ú× ÈÍ ØÓÉÙÇÉÉ ÈÔ× ÌÊÍÌÍÉ×Ø ÚÊÓØÕ× ÐÛÃÍÇÈ ÛÎØ
ÛØØÊ×ÉÉ ÛÎà ÙÍÎÙ×ÊÎÉ ÛÎØ ËÇ×ÉÈÓÍÎÉ ÌÊÓÍÊ ÈÍ ÍÖÖÓÙÓÛÐ ÏÇÎÓÙÓÌÛÐ ÙÍÎÉ×ÎÈ ÛÙÈÓÍÎ ÛÈ Û ÐÛÈ×Ê
ØÛÈ×
íÊØ×Ê×Ø Úà ÈÔ× ùÓÈà ùÍÇÎÙÓÐ ÍÎ ïÛÃ
ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ
ï×ÐÛÎÓ× ï×ÉÑÍ ð××
ûÉÉÓÉÈÛÎÈ ùÓÈÃ ûØÏÓÎÓÉÈÊÛÈÍÊ
ùÓÈà ùÐ×ÊÑ
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Highway 61 Hastings Bridge Design-Build
Metropolitan District
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
Date: June 25, 2009
Meeting Agenda
Meeting Subject: SP 1913-64 TH 61 Hastings Bridge
Meeting Purpose: This meeting is between Mn/DOT and the City of Hastings
City Council to review the project layout prior to Mn/DOT requesting municipal
consent on the layout.
Meeting Date and Time: June 29, 2009, 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM
Meeting Location: Hastings City Hall
Attendees:
Paul Hicks – Mayor Anthony Alongi – Council Member
Joe Balsanek – Council Member Tony Nelson – Council Member
Danna Elling Schultz – Council Mike Slavik – Council Member
Member
Barb Hollenbeck – Council Member
Steve Kordosky – Mn/DOT Barry Bernstein – City of Hastings
Jerome Adams – Mn/DOT (Meeting Tom Montgomery – City of Hastings
recorder)
Lynn Clarkowski – Mn/DOT Dave Osberg – City of Hastings
Nick Egger- City of Hastings John Hinzman – City of Hastings
John Grossman – City of Hastings Mike Schutt – City of Hastings
Mike McMenomy – City of Hastings
Agenda:
1)Explain purpose of this meeting:
a)Mn/DOT would like to review the draft layout for the Hwy. 61 Hastings
Bridge Project with the City of Hastings City Council prior to Mn/DOT
requesting Municipal Consent approval from the City. This will enable
Mn/DOT to address any concerns the City may have regarding Municipal
Consent approval before the request is made.
2)Review of Municipal Consent State Statute
a)Refer to the Municipal Consent Subject Guidance, attached.
b)Municipal Consent is required when a highway project results in any of the
following within a highway project. The Hastings Bridge Project results in all
3 of the following items.
i)Alters access
ii)Increases or reduces traffic capacity
iii)Acquisition of permanent right-of-way
3)Municipal Consent Schedule
a)The law describes several maximum durations for many of the milestones in
the Municipal Consent process. Only one of those milestones, the public
hearing public notice of 30 days, needs to have its entire duration of time pass
before moving onto the next step. All other durations could be done in one day
if the City Council is willing.
An equal opportunity employer
b)In general, Mn/DOT would like all approvals, environmental documents,
permits, and agreements completed by November 2009 when we plan to
release the Design-Build Request For Proposals.
c)Would like to submit the layout to the City Council for approval on Mon., Jul.
20, 2009 after the bridge type selection has been made public.
i)Need to coordinate submittal date with City Council, so the City can
announce the public hearing date and time.
d)Schedule as set by law.
i)Mn/DOT submits layout for approval Jul. 20.
ii)City holds public hearing within 60 days, (the City must schedule the
public hearing within 15 days of receiving the layout submittal).
iii)The public notice for the public hearing must last a minimum of 30 days.
iv)City passes resolution approving/disapproving layout within 90 days of the
public hearing.
e)Fast track schedule
i)If the City schedules the public hearing within 1 day, and takes 1 day to
approve the layout after the public hearing, then the approval could be
obtained in about 32 days, or by the last week of Aug. 2009.
4)Discuss good faith cost estimate of the city’s share of the project’s cost.
a)City has requested the following work to be added to the Hastings Bridge
project. The city will be responsible for 100% of the cost for this work.
nd
i)Watermain extension from Levee Park to 2 Street.
ii)Watermain and sanitary sewer improvements within the Hwy. 61 right-of-
rdth
way between 3 St. and 5 St.
b)Aesthetic Budget Items
i)At this time there are many improvements to the project that are being
negotiated between the City and Mn/DOT. Right now Mn/DOT is
assuming all of those improvements can be paid for with State dollars using
the Aesthetic Budget for the project.
ii)Normally the shared-use trails would be the City’s responsibility to fund,
but at this time it appears that they will be funded by the Aesthetic Budget.
iii)Normally the City Light poles that are on Mn/DOT right-of-way by permit
would be the City’s cost to relocate, but again it is assumed this cost will be
funded with State funds from the Aesthetic Budget.
iv)There are other items that will be similarly paid from the Aesthetic Budget.
5)Limited Use Permit for shared-use trails on Mn/DOT right-of-way
a)In order for Mn/DOT to show on the layout submitted for Municipal Consent
and construct the shared-use trails described below, Mn/DOT will need to
obtain a resolution from the City stating that the City will enter into a Limited
Use Permit for the trails:
thrd
i)East side of Hwy. 61 from 4 St. to 3 St.
rdnd
ii)West side of east ramp from 3 St. to 2 St.
nd
iii)Within Hwy. 61 right-of-way from 2 St. to the Mississippi River
b)Refer to standard Limited Use Permit language example.
c)Will the City of Hastings pass a resolution entering into a Limited Use Permit,
and sign the Limited Use Permit for the shared-use trails?
6)Review layout
a)We are only reviewing the “Single Bridge” layout at this meeting.
b)The Single Bridge layout and the Twin Bridge layout are the same regarding:
i)Change in Capacity
ii)Change in Access
An equal opportunity employer
c)The only difference between the Single Bridge and Twin Bridge layouts is in
the right-of-way acquisition.
i)The Hudson Manufacturing parcel is the only parcel that has a different
amount of acquisition between the Single and Twin Bridge layouts. The
Twin Bridge takes less property from Hudson.
ii)All other right-of-way acquisitions are the same between the Single and
Twin Bridge layouts.
th
d)Striping on 4 St.
i)Mn/DOT recommends that the thru/left and right turn only lanes be striped.
ii)City recommends that these lanes be left unstriped.
iii)Mn/DOT will accept City’s recommendation.
7)North Project Limits
8)Does the City Council have comments or concerns regarding the 3 Municipal
Consent items, listed below, that need to be addressed before they pass a resolution
approving the final layout for Municipal Consent?
a)Alters access
b)Increases or reduces traffic capacity
c)Acquisition of permanent right-of-way
An equal opportunity employer
HPDP / Scoping / Subject Guidance Minnesota Department of Transportation
Municipal Consent
Contact
Steve Ryan, P. E. steve.ryan@dot.state.mn.us
Project and Process Guidance Engineer
Office of Technical Support
395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 676
St. Paul, MN 55155
(651)366-4675
Forms
For a generic layout-approval resolution for use by a municipality, see Sample Resolution in the
Appendix.
Threshold Criteria
Municipal consent should only be requested from a city if it is required.
When Required
Municipal approval is required for any trunk highway project that results in any of the
following within a municipality:
Alters access,
Increases or reduces traffic capacity, or
Requires acquisition of permanent right-of-way.
(Changing capacity means adding or reducing the number of through lanes. For
example, adding auxiliary lanes is not a change in capacity).
Exceptions
Municipal consent is NOT required (regardless of impacts to access, capacity, or R/W) for
projects needed for any of the following:
Regulate traffic, or
Install traffic control devices, or
Other safety measures
The term “other safety measures” refers to traffic safety measures. For example,
the addition of a turn lane is a traffic safety measure; the replacement of a
structurally-deficient or fracture-critical bridge is not.
1 of 5
Municipal Consent
HPDP / Scoping / Subject Guidance Mn/DOT
Also, maintenance activities do not trigger the need for municipal consent.
Examples
Permanent Easements require
(such as Drainage Easements) municipal consent
(because they take permanent right-of-way).
Roundabouts
are used for traffic regulation and as a safety measure, and thus are
exceptions
that do not require Municipal Consent even if they involve permanent
right-of-way taking.
Roles and Procedures
Municipal consent should only be requested from a city if it is required. (See Threshold Criteria
above).
Sometimes a city may choose to waive municipal consent on a specific project. In that case the
city council must pass a resolution clearly identifying the project and waiving its right to
municipal consent for that project. However, the typical municipal consent process is as outlined
below.
Procedure (for obtaining municipal consent)
1. Mn/DOT (District) submits to the city the final layout with a letter requesting city
approval. The letter includes a good faith cost estimate of the city’s share of the
project’s cost and the following (either in the letter or in an attached report):
project purpose
route location
short description of the proposed design of the highway
any additional supporting data
2. City schedules and holds public hearing (within 60 days of submittal).
City must schedule within 15 days of receiving Mn/DOT’s request for approval and
must give 30 days public notice.
3. City passes resolution approving / disapproving (within 90 days of public hearing).
After 90 from the date of the public hearing, if the city has not passed a resolution
disapproving the layout, the layout is deemed approved.
2 of 5
Municipal Consent
HPDP / Scoping / Subject Guidance Mn/DOT
4. If city disapproves, Mn/DOT decides whether to:
a. Meet city’s condition(s), assuming city approved with conditions:
Mn/DOT writes city a letter indicating this and attaches revised layout with
change(s). This ends the MC process.
b. Go to the appeal process.
c. Stop the project (do not build the project, or scale project down so that municipal
consent is no longer required).
5. If in the final plan Mn/DOT alters access, capacity or R/W, Mn/DOT must re-submit
changed portion of plan for city’s approval. (The city is not required to hold another
public hearing and has 60 days to approve or disapprove).
City Approval
The city can approve either by a formal approval resolution (see generic resolution in
Appendix), or by not passing a resolution disapproving the layout within 90 days of the
public hearing.
The city’s review – with regards to layout approval – is limited to the project elements
in the final layout that are within the boundaries of that city. A city cannot impose a
condition on its approval that is outside of the city’s boundaries.
The process allows the city one opportunity to exercise approval or disapproval of the
final layout (unless Mn/DOT alters the plan with regards to access, capacity, or
right-of-way). Once a city approves the layout, it cannot rescind its approval later. If a
city disapproves with conditions, and if Mn/DOT agrees to meet those conditions – and
notifies the city in writing (including copy of revised layout) – then municipal consent
has been obtained.
The municipal consent statute applies to changes on “any route on the trunk highway
system lying within any municipality.” If a T.H. borders a city and no section of the T.H.
is completely within the city limits, municipal consent is still required for any of the
designated changes (access, capacity, or right-of-way) that do occur within that city.
However, if the changes triggering the municipal consent process are on the other side
of the T.H. – and thus outside the city’s limits – then municipal consent is not required
from that city and is not requested from that city.
3 of 5
Municipal Consent
HPDP / Scoping / Subject Guidance Mn/DOT
City Disapproval
If a city disapproves the final layout, Mn/DOT can stop the project (or scale it back so
that municipal consent is no longer required), or Mn/DOT can take the project to the
appeal process.
If the city disapproves – but includes condition(s) for approval, Mn/DOT has the above
options plus the option of meeting the city’s condition(s), and thus obtaining the city’s
approval. To do this, Mn/DOT sends the city a letter to that effect with the layout
attached (revised to show the change(s)). This completes the municipal consent
process; Mn/DOT then has the city’s approval. (Sending the letter and revised layout is
NOT a resubmittal for further consideration by the city).
Appeal Process
The appeal process is the same for interstate and non-interstate projects. However,
the Mn/DOT Commissioner is not bound by the recommendations of the appeal board
with respect to interstate highways.
If Mn/DOT decides to go to the appeal process, the first step is to establish an Appeal
Board of three members: one member appointed by the Commissioner, one member
appointed by the City Council, and a third member agreed upon by both the
Commissioner and the City Council. (If a third member cannot be agreed upon, the
Commissioner refers the selection to the chief justice of the Supreme Court, who then
has 14 days to appoint the third member).
After the appeal board is established, the Commissioner refers the final layout to the
Appeal Board. The Appeal Board then has 30 days to hold a hearing at which the
Commissioner and the City Council may present their cases for or against approval of
the layout. Within 60 days after the hearing, the Appeal Board must make its
recommendation regarding the final layout. The recommendation can be:
for approval, or
for approval with modifications, or
for disapproval.
The board can also make additional recommendations consistent with state and
federal requirements as it deems appropriate. The board must submit a written report
with its findings and recommendations to the Commissioner and the City Council.
4 of 5
Municipal Consent
HPDP / Scoping / Subject Guidance Mn/DOT
Legal Basis
The Minnesota municipal consent statutes (see links below) were revised in the 2001 legislative
session.
State Municipal Consent Statutes
DefinitionsMN Statute 161.162
Highway Project ReviewMN Statute 161.163
Final Layout Approval ProcessMN Statute 161.164
Commissioner Action; Interstate HighwaysMN Statute 161.165
Commissioner Action; Other HighwaysMN Statute 161.166
Reimbursement of Expenses
MN Statute 161.167
(for Appeal Board Members)
Helpful Links
Mn/DOT
Public Involvement
Glossary
Municipality:
A statutory or home rule charter city.
Municipal Consent:
A municipality’s approval of Mn/DOT’s final layout for a project on a Trunk
Highway when such approval is required by State Statute – see Threshold Criteria below.
(Approval is by a resolution passed by the elected council of the municipality – the City Council).
Appendix
Municipal Consent Process
Sample City Resolution
5 of 5
Municipal Consent Process
Mn/DOT – HPDP/Scoping
Basic Process
1. Mn/DOT submits the final layout to the City with a letter requesting City approval of the layout.
60 days
2. The City holds public hearing within 60 days of Mn/DOT’s submittal
and gives a 30-day (minimum) public notice of the hearing.
Mn/DOT presents the layout at the public hearing
3. The City Council passes a resolution approving / disapproving the layout
(within 90 days of public hearing).
90 days
If after 90 days from the public hearing the City has not passed a
resolution disapproving the layout, the layout is deemed approved
4. If the City approves, Mn/DOT can proceed with the project.
5. If the City disapproves, Mn/DOT’s options are:
Make the changes requested by the City (if any)
o
Refer the layout to an Appeal Board
o
Stop the project
o
Modify the project so municipal consent is not required
o
Prepare a new final layout and start the MC process over from beginning
o
Before Appeal: Total Maximum time = 150 days
Appeal Process
1. Mn/DOT notifies the City that it is appealing.
2. An Appeal Board of three persons is established:
Undefined time to
Mn/DOT appoints a member
o
establish appeal board
The City appoints a member
o
Third member selected by mutual agreement between the City & Mn/DOT.
o
If they cannot agree, Mn/DOT requests the MN Chief Justice to select.
14 days
The Chief Justice appoints third member within 14 days of Mn/DOT’s request.
Undefined time
3. Mn/DOT refers the final layout to the Appeal Board.
4. The Appeal Board holds a hearing (within 30 days of receiving final layout from Mn/DOT).
30 days
The City and Mn/DOT each present their case
60 days
5. The Appeal Board makes its recommendation (within 60 days of the hearing):
Approval, or
o
Approval with modifications, or
o
Maximum for Appeal Process = 104 days +
Disapproval of the final layout
o
(plus time to establish appeal board, etc.)
6. If the Board approves, Mn/DOT can proceed with the project.
7. If the Board disapproves, or approves with modifications, Mn/DOT’s options are:
Make recommended modifications (if any), and proceed with the project
o
Stop the project
o
Modify the project so municipal consent is not required
o
Prepare a new final layout and start the MC process over from beginning
o
If it is an Interstate Highway project, Mn/DOT may proceed with the project using
o
the layout that was not approved (and sends a report to the City and the Appeal
Board stating the reasons for doing so).
TOTAL Possible Time = 254 days +
NOTE:
If final construction plans contain changes to access, capacity, or right-of-way from the layout approved by the
City, Mn/DOT resubmits the changed portion of the plans to the City for approval. (City has 60 days to approve). This
holds whether municipal consent was obtained through the basic MC process or through the appeal process.
Sample City Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. _____
RESOLUTION FORLAYOUT APPROVAL
At a Meeting of the City Council of the City of ___________________, held on the __ day
of _______, 200_, the following Resolution was offered by ____________________and seconded by
________________ to wit:
WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation has prepared a final layout for the improvement of
_____________________________________________________________________________ within
the City of __________________________ from ________________________ to _________________;
and seeks the approval thereof: and
WHEREAS, said final layouts are on file in the Minnesota Department of Transportation office, ______,
Minnesota, being marked, labeled and identified as Layout No. ___ S.P. __________ from R.P.
__________ to __________; and
WHEREAS, improvements to city streets and appurtenances have been included in the said final layouts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said final layouts for the improvement of said Trunk
Highway within the corporate limits be and is hereby approved”.
Upon the call of the roll the following Council Members voted in favor of the Resolution:
The following Council Members voted against its adoption:
___________________________________________________________________________________
ATTEST:
Mayor _________________________________ Dated ________________, 200________
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ________________
CITY OF ____________________
I do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to
and adopted by the Council of the City of ___________________________, Minnesota at a duly
authorized meeting thereof held on the ______ day of _________________, 200_____, as shown by the
minutes of said meeting in my possession.
(SEAL)_______________________________
City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LIMITED USE PERMIT FOR
NONMOTORIZED RECREATIONAL TRAIL
C.S.
County of
LUP #
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 161.434 and 23 C.F.R. 652 also published as
the Federal-Aid Policy Guide, a Limited Use Permit is hereby granted to __________,
Permittee. This permit is for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and operating a
nonmotorized recreational trail, (hereinafter called trail), within the right of way of Trunk
Highway No(s). ___ as shown in red on Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference. This permit is executed by the Permittee pursuant to the
attached resolution. In addition, the following special provisions shall apply:
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
1. The construction, maintenance, and supervision of the trail shall be at no expense to the
Minnesota Department of Transportation.
2. Before construction of any kind, the plans for such construction shall be approved in
writing by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, through the District Engineer.
3. No permanent structure(s) or advertising device(s) in any manner, form or size shall
be constructed, placed or permitted to be constructed or placed upon the State of
Minnesota right of way.
4. No commercial activity or activities shall be allowed to operate upon said State of
Minnesota right of way.
5. Any and all maintenance of the trail shall be provided by the Permittee; this includes,
but is not limited to, the plowing and removal of snow, and the installation and removal
of regulatory signs.
6. This permit is non-exclusive and is granted subject to the rights of others, including, but
not limited to public utilities which may occupy said right of way.
7. The Permittee shall preserve and protect all utilities located on the lands covered by this
permit at no expense to the Minnesota Department of Transportation and it shall be the
responsibility of the Permittee to call the Gopher State One Call System
at 1-800-252-1166 at least 48 hours prior to performing any excavation.
LUP – Nonmotorized Recreational Trail Page 1 of 4 LU1001 6/29/2009
8. Any crossings of the trail over the trunk highway shall be perpendicular to the centerline
of the highway and shall provide and ensure reasonable and adequate stopping sight
distance.
9. The Permittee shall construct the trail at the location shown in the attached Exhibit "A"
subject to verification by the Minnesota Department of Transportation District Engineer
that the construction geometrics and procedures result in a trail that is compatible with
the safe and efficient operation of the highway facility.
10. Approval from Minnesota Department of Transportation District Engineer shall be
required for any changes from the approved plan.
11. Upon completion of the construction of the trail, the Permittee shall restore all disturbed
slopes and ditches in such manner that drainage, erosion control and aesthetics are
perpetuated.
12. This permit does not release the Permittee from any liability or obligation imposed by
federal law, Minnesota Statutes, local ordinances, or other agency regulations relating
thereto and any necessary permits relating thereto shall be applied for and obtained by
the Permittee.
13. Any use permitted by this permit shall remain subordinate to the right of the Minnesota
Department of Transportation to use the property for highway and transportation
purposes. This permit does not grant any interest whatsoever in land, nor does it
establish a permanent park, recreation area or wildlife or waterfowl refuge facility that
would become subject to Section 4 (f) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of l968, nor does
this permit establish a Bikeway or Pedestrian way which would require replacement
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 160.264.
14. This permit shall be subject to cancellation and termination by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation, with or without cause, by giving the Permittee 90
days written notice of such intent. Upon said notice of cancellation the trail shall be
removed within 90 days by the Permittee. Upon cancellation of said permit, or any
portion thereof, the Permittee will be required to return and restore the area to a
condition satisfactory to the Minnesota Department of Transportation District Engineer.
The removal of the trail and the return and restoration of the area shall be at no cost to
the Minnesota Department of Transportation and at the sole expense of the Permittee.
15. The Permittee, for itself, its successors, and assigns, agrees to abide by the provisions
of Title VI Appendix C of the Civil Rights Act of l964, which provides in part that no
person in the United States, shall on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be
excluded from, or denied use of any trail.
16. The State of Minnesota, through its Commissioner of Transportation, shall retain the
right to limit and/or restrict the parking of vehicles and assemblage of trail users on the
LUP – Nonmotorized Recreational Trail Page 2 of 4 LU1001 6/29/2009
highway right of way over which this permit is granted, so as to maintain the safety of
both the motoring public and trail users.
17. No assignment of this permit is allowed.
18. The Permittee shall not dispose of any materials regulated by any governmental or
regulatory agency onto the ground, or into any body of water, or into any container on
the State’s right of way.In the event of spillage of regulated materials, the Permittee
shall provide for cleanup of the spilled material and of materials contaminated by the
spillage in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations,
at the sole expense of the Permittee.
19. The Permittee shall hold harmless and indemnify the State of Minnesota, its
Commissioner of Transportation and employees and its successors and assigns, from
liability claims for damages because of bodily injury, death, property damage, sickness,
disease, or loss and expense arising from the operations of the trail or from the use of
the portion of highway right of way over which this permit is granted.
20. The Permittee shall hold harmless and indemnify the State of Minnesota, its
Commissioner of Transportation and employees and its successors and assigns from
claims arising or resulting from the temporary or permanent termination of trail user
rights on any portion of highway right of way over which this permit is granted.
21. The Permittee will hold harmless and indemnify the State of Minnesota, its
Commissioner of Transportation and employees from claims resulting from temporary or
permanent changes in drainage patterns resulting in flood damages.
22. The Permittee (for itself, its contractors, subcontractors, its materialmen, and all other
persons acting for, through or under it or any of them), covenants that no laborers',
mechanics', or materialmens' liens or other liens or claims of any kind whatsoever shall
be filed or maintained by it or by any subcontractor, materialmen or other person or
persons acting for, through or under it or any of them against the work and/or against
said lands, for or on account of any work done or materials furnished by it or any of
them under any agreement or any amendment or supplement thereto; agrees to
indemnify and hold harmless the State of Minnesota from all such liens and claims.
LUP – Nonmotorized Recreational Trail Page 3 of 4 LU1001 6/29/2009
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT CITY OF ______________
OF TRANSPORTATION
By_________________________________
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
Its ____________________________
And________________________________
Its ____________________________
By:_______________________________
District Engineer
Date______________________________
APPROVED BY:
COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
By:_______________________________
Director, Office of Land Management
Date______________________________
The Commissioner of Transportation
by the execution of this permit
certifies that this permit is
necessary in the public interest
and that the use intended is for
public purposes.
LUP – Nonmotorized Recreational Trail Page 4 of 4 LU1001 6/29/2009
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Highway 61 Hastings Bridge Design-Build
Metropolitan District
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
Date: June 25, 2009
Nick Egger
City Engineer
City of Hastings
th
101 4 Street East
Hastings, MN 55033
Subject: Reasons not to install signal at King’s Cove entrance
Dear Nick Egger:
This letter is an addendum to the letter written on Apr. 20, 2009 subject North
Project Limit For The Hwy. 61 Hastings Bridge. I’ve included that letter as an
attachment. The topic to extend the north project limit of the project continues
to be an issue and will likely be a discussed at the upcoming June 29, 2009
City Council Workshop to review the draft layout for Municipal Consent. One
reason given for extending the project limit north is because it is perceived that
the intersection of Hwy. 61 and the King’s Cove Marina is an unsafe
intersection. Mn/DOT forwarded a memo dated May 18, 2009 that stated the
st
intersection funding priority due to safety concerns is lower than 951 in the
entire state. That memo is also attached.
It has also been brought up by the stakeholders that one way to solve the
perceived safety problem at the King’s Cove entrance is to install a traffic
signal. The Apr. 20 letter states that the intersection does not meet signal
warrants and is not justified. I’ve attached a fact sheet on signalized
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Memo
Metro District - Traffic Engineering
Office Tel: 651-234-7819
1500 West County Road B-2Fax: 651-234-7850
Roseville, Minnesota 55113e-mail: Mike.Fairbanks@dot.state.mn.us
May 18, 2009
To: Steve Kordosky, P.E. Mn/DOT Hastings Bridge Design Build Engineer
From: Michael J Fairbanks, P.E. Mn/DOT Metro Traffic Design Build Engineer
Wayne Lemaniak Mn/DOT Metro Traffic East Area Manager
Subject: Hasting City Council’s Request for Funding Priority at King’s Cove Intersection
At the request of the Hasting’s City Council, Mn/DOT Metro Traffic examined the
intersection of TH 61 @ Kings Cove to determine the state cost rank.
The TOP 200 Crash Cost Statewide Intersection listing is a broad based attempt to
determine which locations contain safety components that can be addressed by providing
improvements to the roadway to reduce crashes. It is another tool for Traffic personnel to
identify locations where there is a safety problem. The data contained on the listing
detailed crash information for the years 2005 through 2007.
The intersections are prioritized by downloading crash data that is entered into a database
and can be manipulated to analyze crash histories. This listing is a cursory look at
intersections as a starting point to mitigate problem areas. All crashes located at a
particular intersection are assigned “crash costs” by severity. In short, an intersection
with crashes that are more severe and contain overall higher incidents, score higher.
The intersection of US 61 and the Kings Cove Entrance is rated 951st worst among all
State wide intersections. That is how it is ranked before a detailed examination is
performed. The next step is to use the crash listing to analyze all the crashes coded to this
location. Traffic personnel will examine each crash report to validate the data contained
Given the fact that there were only two crashes at this intersection, it is considered a very
safe area as related to other intersections within the State. As a threshold for screening
potential intersections for improvement, Metro Traffic looks for three correctable crashes
in any one year time period. As you can readily see, this intersection does not comeunder
that umbrella. On a priority basis, this location would not be seriously considered for a
safety mitigation project.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this intersection. If you have any questions
about this memo, please do not hesitate to contact Mike Fairbanks at (651) 234-7819.
cc: File