MSAS NEEDS STUDY TASK FORCE Members: District 1- David Salo, Hermantown District 2- Greg Boppre, East Grand Forks District 3- Terry Maurer District 4- Tim Schoonhoven, Alexandria District 6- Jon Erichson, Austin District 7- Troy Nemmers, Fairmont District 8- John Rodeberg, Glencoe Metro East Brian Bachmeier, Oakdale Metro West- Lee Gustafson, Minnetonka 1 st Class City- Don Elwood, Minneapolis 1 st Class City- Paul Kurtz, St. Paul Alternates: District 1- Jim Prusak, Cloquet District 3- Brad DeWolf, Big Lake, Buffalo, Isanti District 7- Tim Loose, St. Peter District 8- Glenn Olson, Marshall 1 st Class City- Larry Veek, Minneapolis 1 st Class City- Jim Vanderhoof, St. Paul State Aid Staff Marshall Johnston Julee Puffer Mike Kowski
MSAS NEEDS STUDY TASK FORCE AGENDA September 15 9:30 to 3:30 Conference Room 8 I. Introduction a. Welcome by State Aid b. Introductions II. Elect Secretary for this meeting III. Identify a Statement of Goals of the Task Force a. Review direction from Municipal Screening Board b. Define a Statement of Goals IV. Discuss Purpose/Objectives of Task Force a. Shortcomings of current Needs program i. Outdated program language and data collection method ii. Inflexible iii. Not intuitive b. Purpose of Needs Study i. Distribute dollars? ii. Represent actual Construction Costs/Needs? V. Optional Methods of Computing Needs a. Revise current Unit Cost/Cost per Mile method to new platform i. Update data collection method ii. Mirror current data fields, calculations iii. Simplify input iv. Shorter timeline to design v. Faster implementation vi. Shorter consultant contract b. Redesign Needs i. Historical Construction Costs method 1. New CSAH method ii. Life Cycle iii. Pavement Management iv. Others c. Desired Characteristics of either method i. Flexibility ii. Ease of Data Entry 1. Auto fill fields 2. Interactive iii. Electronic data transfer- traffic counts, unit costs, etc.
iv. Compatible/interactive with GIS, TIS, other programs v. Understandable to users vi. Explainable to non users vii. Others VI. Other Needs related discussion items a. Minimum City concept i. Base on population ii. Base on MSAS system size iii. Base on amount of Construction Needs Apportionment iv. Tiers of Minimum Cities b. Segmentation issue i. Fewer segments c. Reports i. Budget Narrative ii. Others d. Federal Functional Classification e. Non existing Roadways VII. Recommendation to the Municipal Screening Board and SALT a. Report to the MSB b. Logistical support i. Elect Chair ii. Elect permanent Secretary iii. Contracts with consultants VIII. Closing a. Expense Reports b. Schedule next meeting
Meeting Minutes MSAS Needs Study Task Force September 15, 2010 Attendees: David Salo, Greg Boppre, Terry Maurer, Jon Erichson, Troy Nemmers, John Rodeberg, Brian Bachmeier, Lee Gustafson, Don Elwood, Paul Kurtz, Brad DeWolf, Glenn Olson, Larry Veek, Jim Vanderhoof, Marshall Johnston, Julie Skallman, Julee Puffer, Mike Kowski, Rick Kjonaas, Tim Loose The last Screening Board directed the formation of this task force. The following motion was passed: It is recommended that the Screening Board develop a process to create a committee of stakeholders to evaluate a new system (calculations and/or software) to determine the Needs for the Municipal State Aid Cities. It is recommended that the stakeholders group have a representative from each district and one city of the first class. This committee may need to commit to a 2-3 year term, based on how long of a process this has been for the Counties. This Committee would present updates at the fall and spring Screening Board Meetings. Objective of Task Force Attendees discussed objective and agreed on the following: The objective of this Task Force is to study the existing needs system and recommend revisions to the method of collecting and evaluating needs to the Municipal Screening Board. There was significant discussion regarding how much of the existing Needs Study process should be saved. Consensus of the group was that distributing MSAS funds should still be based ½ on population and ½ on needs. Also, the population floor of 5,000 for MSAS eligibility is still appropriate. Here are the basic conclusions of the group: Problems/concerns with the Existing Needs Study Process 1) Unnecessarily complex 2) Excessive time needed to complete the updates a. By State Aid Office employees b. By City employees/consultant 3) No secondary use for data- example: does not interface with other data bases a. Value is not consistent with time spent b. Data input does not reflect actual construction 4) Allows manipulation(game playing) to maximize allocation 5) Promotes doing nothing to maximize Needs (20 year reinstatement) 6) Using local dollars reduces Needs, creating an unintended penalty 7) Relearning the program/system annually because of complexity 8) Does not allow efficiencies of in-house programming to reflect MSB direction 9) If continue with unit prices there needs to be an ability to recognize and deal with unbalanced bids
Meeting Minutes MSAS Needs Study Task Force September 15, 2010 10) Does not have the ability to address Needs based on safety and congestion/transit 11) Does not address issues with differences between preservation/reconditioning and reconstruction Desirable Characteristics of the New Needs Study Process 1) Simplify 2) Road inventory software to use for all local streets, not just MSA System a. Tie to Pavement Management System b. Reflect current construction techniques 3) Eliminate the ability to manipulate system to gain unfair advantages 4) Easy to defend and explain, credible 5) Flexible 6) Automate as much as possible a. Auto-fill data entry b. Compatible /interactive with other data bases (eg. traffic data) c. Interface with GIS mapping 7) Reporting capabilities- run queries of the data base by any user, not just State Aid staff 8) Allow specific queries on the CSAH data base 9) In-house programming capabilities to more efficiently and effectively respond to MSB requests 10) If continue with unit prices there needs to be an ability to recognize and deal with unbalanced bids. 11) The ability to address needs based on safety and congestion/transit 12) The ability to address issues with differences with preservation /reconditioning and reconstruction Other Needs Study Issues to be Addressed 1) Consider simple system to determine needs. For example, use ADT and soil factor to determine cross-section and cost per foot. Then related cost per foot to be applied to appropriate segments on MSAS. 2) Consider using continual needs rather than Adequate & Deficient segments a. Simplifies reporting b. Better reflects construction programs and changing technology 3) Rural and Urban sections - do we continue with rural Needs? 4) Current Soil factor a. Established in 1956 b. Many don t understand c. Does not relate to current design criteria d. Should it be based on regional factor? 5) ADT determines road width? a. Should we continue with one state wide growth factor?
Meeting Minutes MSAS Needs Study Task Force September 15, 2010 b. Cross-section design needs to be reviewed if choose to use existing traffic c. Procedure to receive approval for higher growth factor 6) After the Fact items address or eliminate a. Length of time of all the positive adjustments b. Right of Way c. Non Existing Bridges d. Retaining Walls 7) Is there a need for regional factors for review of consistency? a. Soils Conditions b. Traffic Projection Factors c. Unit Price variances d. Cities of the First Class 8) Special Items - Address or Eliminate a. Automatic i. Traffic Signals ii. Engineering iii. Street Lighting iv. Maintenance b. Not Automatic i. Storm Sewer ii. Divided Roadway iii. Railroad Crossings iv. Existing Bridges v. Sidewalk vi. Curb & Gutter vii. Concrete vs. Bituminous Surface viii. Concrete Sidewalks vs. Bituminous trails ix. Storm Water Management 9) Review all existing MSB resolutions, including positive and negative adjustments. Because of the time commitment involved, the NSTF recommends to the MSB that a facilitator be retained to schedule, organize, and take minutes of all future meetings. Lee Gustafson was unanimously selected and accepted the task to report the above findings at the next Screening Board Meeting October 26-27, 2010 Respectfully submitted, Tim Loose Recording Secretary