Loading...
5.4. SR 04-15-2002gSver 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 MEMORANDUM Item# 5.4. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Scott Harlicker, Senior Planner~~- ..... April 15, 2002 Northstar Corridor Update At the NCDA meeting held on April 4~h the Authority received a report on the state legislative process. As of April 5~h, funding for the Northstar Corridor was included in the Senate bonding bill but not in the House bill. Funding was also included in the Senate transportation finance bill but not in the House bill. The final decision regarding funding will be worked out in conference committees. An overview of federal funding was presented, included in the presentation was how the budget for Northstar compares to similar projects in other parts of the country. It turns out that the actual spending for Northstar is under the industry average for similar projects. The Final Environmental Impact Statement has been completed and the 30 day comment period has begun. A record of decision is expected by June. A letter of support was sent to Senator Roger Moe thanking him for his support of the Northstar project. Phone: 763.441.7420 Fax: 763.441.7425 · DOCUMENT2 www. ci.elk-river, mn.us NCDA Agenda Thursday, April 4, 2002 4:30 p.m. Sherburne County Government Center Elk River, MN Minutes of the February 7, 2002 NCDA Meeting* Action Requested Approval Intergovernmental Coordination Committee Report a) Update on Legislative Progress 1) State 2) Federal Discussion Executive Committee/Capital Budget Committee Report a) Update on Public Information Activities b) Other Information Report on Local Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Activities (Ramsey)* Mn/DOT Project Update ~ FEIS* Other Information Information Next Meeting: May 2, 2002 * Documentation Enclosed. DRAFT DRAFT D RAFT D RAFT D RAFT NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Regular Meeting Minutes February 7, 2002 The Northstar Corridor Development Authority met in regular session on February 7, 2002, in the Board Room at the Sherburne County Government Center, Elk River, Minnesota. Present were: Betsy Wergin, Tim Yantos, Mary Richardson, Don Nevala, Stephen Peka, Paul McCarron, Dave Saunders, Steve Billings, Paul Ostrow, Tom Gamec, Bob Barnette, Robert Kirchner, Gery Then, Duane Cekalla, Duane Grandy, Patrick Cairns, John Ellenbecker, Bob Johnson, Ewald Petersen, Terry Nagorski, Lewis Stark, Mike Schadauer, John N. Norgren, Jim McLean, David Carlberg, Jon Sontag, Scott Harlicker, Linda Jungwirth, Kelli Neu, Jean Keely, Ann-Therese Schmid, Margo LaBau, Luci Botzek, Rick Speak, Dean Michalko, Dartrell Lipscomb, Elliott Perovich, James E. Norman, Mark J. Peine, Julie Shortridge, Jeff Dehler, Brian Bensen, Peg Aho, Ken Stevens, David Loch, Steve Novak, John Himle, Jay McLinden, Jeff Schilling, Eugene Young, and Tom Wenzel. o The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. 15y Chairperson Betsy Wergin. Duane Cekalla made a motion approving the meeting agenda as presented. The motion was seconded by Patrick Cairns and passed unanimously. Tom Gamec thanked Chair Wergin and Vice Chair Ostrow for acting as leaders of the Northstar Corridor Development Authority for the past few years. Mr. Gamec noted that he is in favor of Betsy Wergin and Paul Ostrow continuing in their roles as Chair and Vice Chair until the end of March, so that there is no change in leadership during this Legislative Session. The motion was seconded by Duane Grandy. Ewald Peterson noted that he concurs that Chair Wergin should be on the front line at the Legislature this session. Ewald Peterson made a motion that Betsy Wergin be reelected Chair of the NCDA for another two year term. Duane Cekalla seconded the motion. Paul McCarron moved that election of officers be closed and a unanimous ballot cast for Betsy Wergin. Steve Billings seconded the motion. Elections were closed. The motion that Betsy Wergin be reelected Chair was unanimously approved on a voice vote. Chair Wergin thanked the members of the Authority for their support. Paul McCarron made a motion that Paul Ostrow be reelected as Vice Chair of the NCDA for another two year term. The motion was seconded by Duane Grandy and the motion passed unanimously on a voice vote. Chairperson Wergin gave an update on the Commuter Rail Demonstration Project held on January 28. Chair Wergin noted that the Demonstration Project went smoothly due to all the hard work put into it by staff. Jeff Dehler, Anoka County, gave an overview of the Demo. Page 1 He noted that there were two rail cars brought in by Sounder in Seattle, Washington. Jeff noted that two trips were run with over 700 riders. John Himle, Himle Homer, gave an update on public information activities. Mr. Himle noted that the education process is incredibly important. He noted that significant success has been achieved on educating people along the Corridor. 5,000 people living along the Corridor have signed on as supports of the Northstar Project and have offered their help. Mr. Himle noted that bumper stickers have been developed and are in the process of being distributed, and that point of purchase materials have been placed at 400 different locations along the Corridor. Patrick Cairns stated that the billboards are nice and he has seen them along the Corridor, but he noted that the lettering is too small to read and he suggested moving the billboard located by the City of Rice to the other side of the highway in hopes that people would be able to read them as they drive by. Mr. Himle noted that the billboard placements are continually rotating all along the Corridor. Duane Grandy noted that the billboards are eye catching. Steve Novak gave an update on the state and federal legislative activities and handed out to the members a legislative summary prepared February 6 which showed the various House and Senate bills being recommended and their status. He noted that the momentum is building in the House and Senate. Mr. Novak noted that it is expected that a sales tax exemption bill will be introduced but expects that it may lag behind the bonding request by a couple weeks. Mr. Novak also passed out copies of newspaper articles from the northern section of the Corridor which show the support for the Project by Representative Oberstar and residents who live in the northern part of the Corridor. Paul Ostrow asked that all members keep heat on legislators and keep them up date on the Projects' needs. John Ellenbecker noted that he would like help from all members to urge Representative Knoblach to support this project. Patrick Cairns noted that he and others had had a meeting with Representative Knoblach and reiterated to him that this Project is very important to Central Minnesota. o Tim Yantos reviewed Resolution 2002-01 which is being presented to the Authority requesting the consideration of the Members of Congress responsible for the reauthorization of TEA-21 to establish additional federal funding authority or the creation of a new category of New Rail Start funding dedicated to commuter rail projects that will allow projects such as the Northstar Corridor to be funded in a timely and efficient manner. Chair Wergin asked that a revision be made to the 5th Whereas which would note that Congressmen Jim Oberstar, Martin Sabo, Collin Peterson and Bill Luther along with Senators Paul Wellstone and Mark Dayton have been the champions of this project. Steve Billings made a motion that the NCDA pass Resolution 2002-01 as revised per Chair Wergin's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Dave Saunders and passed unanimously on a voice vote. o Mike Schaduaer, Mn/DOT, gave an project update. Mr. Schadauer noted that'the FEiS has been signed and is going to the FTA. Mn/DOT is hoping that FTA has reviewed and commented on the FEIS by the 15th of March. If the FTA does not comment by the 15th, the project will be delayed another two weeks. Mr. Schadauer noted that Mn/DOT had met with Santa Fe officials and it seemed clear that Santa Fe officials won't be serious in negotiations Page 2 until they fee[ that the Northstar Project is a real project. Mr. Schadauer also reviewed for the Authority Mn/DOT's FTA Quarterly Project Review meeting report for January 23. o David Loch reviewed the premise of TOD plans developed by Hoisington Koegler. Scott Harlicker made a presentation on the Elk River Station TOD which proposes a mixed use of town homes, wetlands, apartments, retail offices, senior housing, daycare, etc. Mr. Harlicker noted that a series of side walks and trails will be implemented in the TOD. Mr. I-Iarlicker noted that the City had approved two land use plans and that the plan is pedestrian oriented. Jori Sontag, Big Lake City Planner, gave an overview of Big Lake's plan which includes businesses, multi-family units, and long term industrial reserve. 10. Kelli Neu, City of Becker, reviewed what the City has done to date on their comprehensive plan. She noted that the City is focusing on pedestrian friendly access to the station and on improving biking/pedestrian crossings. I1. David Carlsberg, St. Cloud Planner, noted that Haven Township has indicated that they would move forward with annexation of the land for the station to the City of St. Cloud once funding has been achieved for the Project. David Loch noted that the City of St. Cloud, Haven Township and Sherburne County have been working together with great cooperation to move this project forward. 12. Patrick Cairns, Rice, noted that a year and a half ago, the City had adopted an overlay concept and are considering the process right now. He further noted that they are working in stages with Langola and Lafayette Townships on a comprehensive plan. 13. Tim Yantos reviewed a draft of a letter which had been prepared for a mailing out to House and Senate Representatives stating the NCDA's appreciation for their continued support for the commuter rail project and noting the Authority's support of the funding requests for the Metropolitan Light Rail Transit Joint Powers Board to provide transportation solutions throughout the region. A motion was made by Duane Cekalla authorizing the Chair to sign the letters for the mailing on behalf of the NCDA. The motion was seconded by John Norgren and passed unanimously on a voice vote. 14. Mary Richardson reviewed a resolution of support signed by Chairperson Myra Peterson on behalf of the Red Rock Corridor Commission. 15. The Authority adjourned by unanimous consensus to adjourn the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Betsy Wergin Chairperson Date Page 3 City of Ramsey 15153 NOWTHEN BOULEVARD N.W., RAMSEY, MINNESOTA 55303 PHONE: (763) 4.2.7-1~ ,O FAX (763) 427-5543 TOD (763) 4-27-8591 February 4, 2002 Betsy Wergin, Chair Northstar CmTidor Development Authority Sherbume County 13880 IZli~kway #i0 Elk River, MN 55330 Re: Ramsey Proposed Station Dear Chairperson Wergin: I spoke with you last month to request an. opportunity for Ramsey to be placed on the Northstar Corridor Development Authority (NCDA) agenda regarding its transit oriented development activities and a request for station designation. I just received the February agenda for the NCDA and I find that Rarnsey has. not been placed on the agenda. Please allow this letter to serve as a formal request to be placed on the March agenda for the two purposes outlined below. The January NCDA agenda included a report of Local Transit Oriented Development (TOD) activities for the cities of Minneapolis, Fridlcy, Coon Rapids and Anoka. The February agenda has similar TOD activity reports for Elk River, Big Lake, Becket, St. Cloud and Rice. Originally, when these TOD activities began, Ramsey was included, ho.w.,ever, they are no longer a part of the report. As you may be aware, the proposed Ramsey rail station area was selected by the Metropolitan Council as art Opportunity Site and a gmat..d~al, of TOD activ, ities have taken place over the last year. The City would appreciate the opportmaity to provide a report on its TOD activities as other communities have had their opportunity. The second matter the City wishes to discuss with the'NCDA is the matter of rail station designation. As you are aware, a great deal has taken place since the April 2000 meeting, when the NCDA chose not to allow the Ramsey station site as being part of the first round o.f commuter rail stations. Perhaps the most significant change is that station selection will not be performed by the NCDA, rather by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Since the NCDA has taken the active role of advocacy for the rail corridor, the City of. Ramsey respectfully requests that all proposed station-designated sites be proposed as station sites. 'Currently, the proposed station site in Ramsey is listed as a "possible" or "future" station. Ramsey intends to ask the NCDA to change its status to similar designation as the other station sites identified along the Corridor. Zfl 'ri c,'c': F,, 7.f), F.~[ qa4 ,.,,.~.,_,,.,_,79c~c c.7c. c. nJ.,,._,,c.x~.t A INr'IFI-I H~FINH Letter to Chairperson Wergin Febmm-Y 4, 2002 Page 2 of 2 If you should have any further questions, please contact City Adn-~.uistrator Jim Norman at Kamsey City Hall. Sincerely, CITY OF RAMSEY Thomas G. Oamcc Mayor TGO/jrat C: Anoka County Cormnissioncr Dan Erhart Anoka County Commissioner Paul McCarron Ken Stevens, NCDA Administrative Team Tim Yanto$, NCDA Project Ditector ccc' r. r. oo _6:×Fe.~ c,'fl',q c,',°:F, KF). KT q0q K~,-~-,~.~-, ,7 AINFII-17] H>IFIN~ Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 February 20, 2002 Representative James Kanoblach 45 l State Office Building St. Paul, IvESl 55155 Dear Representative Knoblach: I understand that there are some unanswered questions regarding proposed highway improvements to TH 10, that arose at last week's House Capital Investment Committee meeting during the discussion involving the Northstar Commuter Rail Line. Hopefully, the following information will answei- those questions. The Minnesota Department of Transportation 0Yin/DOT) is currently undertaking two Inter- Regional Corridor ([RC) studies along TH 10. The first is studying TH 10 from its junction w/th 'I-35W to the junction of TH24 in Clear Lake. The second is studying the segment of THl0 from Clear Lake to Rice. This second study also looks at segments, such as a river crossing and connection to 1-94, that are outside the area of the Northstar Corridor. Communities and legislators along the TH I0 corridor have been active participants in these studies. Currently draft p'[ans-are m~dc~-review attd fmai-ru-ports mc ¢xpecteOlater-th~s-spring. Utilizing land use information from community comprehensive plans, these studies projected TH 10 traffic volumes for the year 2025, identified corridor deficiencies and developed a vision for the TH10 corridor for the year 2025 and beyond. These traffic projections assumed that the Northstar Commuter Rail project was completed and operating. A vision of TH 10 was then developed that would meet the projected traffic demands of 2025 and beyond. This vision o£ TH10 improvements includes: 1. Expansion to an eight lane freeway from 1-35W to Anoka. 2. Conversion of the existing four lane expressway to a six lane freeway between Anoka and TH 169 (Elk River). 3. Expansion to a slx lane expressway through Elk River. 4. Actively managing the access along the ex/sting four lane expresswaybetween Elk River and Clear Lake, including construction of a Big Lake bypass. 5. Conversion from a four lane expressway to a four lane freeway between Clear Lake and R/ce. With these potential improvements to TH 10, the corridor will be able to carry the traffic volumes projected for the year 2025 (approximately 115,000 in the Coon Rapids area and approximately 70,000 through Anoka) and still meet Mn/DOT's IZRC performance targets. These targets are a 60 mile per hour average speed on the high priority segments and a 55 mile per hour speed on the medium priority seg-ment. TH I0 between 1-35W and Elk River is considered high priority. Between Elk River and Clear Lake, TH 10 is medium priority, with the segment between TH 24 in Clear Lake and Rice again being high priority. The current cost estimate for the TH 10 I_nterre~onal Corridor Vision (from 35W to TH 24) is approximately $450,000,000. The current cost estimate for the TH 10 Interregional Corridor Vision (from TH24 to Rice) is an additional $145,000,000. These cost estimates include a proportion for right-off-way and noise wails, but do not include any estimate for program delivery. An equal opportunity employer Representative James Knoblach February 20, 2002 Page 2 These project development costs are generally estimated at 18% of construction costs. These cost estimates are ha year 2001. dollars and have not been inflated to an expected year of construction. At this time, there is no specific funding attached to this vision through the year 2025. Mn/DOT's Metropolitan Division long-range Transportation System Plan (TSP) does have a set aside, for unspecified ]IRC projects, of upwards of $400 million targeted for the time period between 2011-2025. Allocation of this set aside is intended to be through a competitive process for projects that come from any of the current or future IRC planning efforts in the following IRC segments: 1 35W from 1-694 to Junction 1 35E 1 35E from 1-694 to Junction 1 35W 1 35 from Junction 1 35 E/W to N Chisago County line 1-94 from 1494 to the Crow River Tlt 101 from Rogers to the Crow River T-E[-1-69-fro m-I-494-to -8-Seo tt-Go u.n t'~lin e Tiff 10 from 1 35W to Elk River TE[ 36 from 1 694 to Stillwater TEl 8 from 1 35 to Wisconsin Ti:/212 from 1 494 to W Carver County line TH 52 from 1 494 to S Dakota County line 1 35E from ! 494 to Junction 1 35W 135W from 1 494 to Junction 1 35E 1 35 from Junction 1 35 E/W to S Dakota County line Th. is means that Mn/DOT has limited resources to allocate (upwards of only $400 million over 15 years) to improving and managing 14 IRC corridors within the boundaries of the eight county Mn/DOT Metropolitan Division. Improvements to these corridors outside of Metro Div/sion boundaries will have to be funded by the construction budgets of the adjacent M_n/DOT Districts. We must therefore conclude that none of the visions for TH 10 or any of these other corridors wiil be fully funded or constructed by 2025, if ever, given current levels of transportation funding. I hope this information has answered the questions concerning TH 10 wl-dch arose in your Capital Investment Committee meeting. If I can be of further assistance or any additional questions arise, please contact me at 651/582-1481. Sincerely, Area Manager Metropolitan Division April 4, 2002 The Honorable Roger D. Moe Minnesota Senate 208 Capitol Saint Paul, MN 55155 Executive Committee: Betsy Wergin. NCDA Chair Sherburne County Paul Ostrow. NCE)A Vice Chair City of Minneapolis Councilmember Paul McCarron Anoka County Mark Stenglein Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Steve Billings City of Fridley Lewis Stark Haven Township Dear Senator Moe: The proposed Northstar commuter rail between Minneapolis and St. Cloud/Rice is one of the most important transportation projects in the state and has strong support from the vast majority of Minnesotans. Local governments and civic organizations along the corridor are also supporting Northstar, and several unions have unanimously passed resolutions for the project, including the Minnesota AFL-CIO, Minnesota Central Labor Union, Minnesota State Building and Construction Trades Council, Minneapolis Building and Construction Trades Council, and Minnesota Teamsters Joint Council 32. Northstar represents a tremendous opportunity for Minnesota to tap into its fair share of federal funding. At the federal level the project enjoys bipartisan support, including from the influential senior leadership of Congressmen Martin Sabo and Jim Oberstar, and support from President Bush. Your leadership in the state Senate has been important to progress on Northstar so far, and we thank you for your on-going support as we enter this crucial period of the legislative session. Recent demographic figures make this project all the more important, with rapid growth from Anoka through the greater St. Cloud area. This is the fastest growing area in the state and the third fastest in the U.S. The population is booming and, along with it, traffic congestion. The existing infrastructure is not capable of handling the current needs and will be overwhelmed by the growth expected in the next 10-20 years. Eighty percent of residents along the corridor, whether Democrat, Republican or Independent, support the Northstar commuter rail project because they are looking for other transportation options. What the citizens want is an integrated transportation system that includes roads and transit options. Northstar Corridor Development Authority 2100 3'" Avenue, Anoka, Minnesota 55303-2265 (763) 323-5700 Fax: (763) 323-5682 www. northstartrain.org Northstar Corridor residents and elected officials are strongly committed to this project and have already provided the local dollars necessary to fund it. The federal government has made it clear that they view this project as viable and rank it positively compared to the dozens of other transit projects proposed across the country. But the State of Minnesota must bring funding to the table this legislative session in order to tap into federal dollars and get this project moving. As Senate Majority Leader, your leadership has been, and remains, crucial to Northstar's success. We strongly urge your continued support and encourage you to promote a full funding package for Northstar in the bonding and transportation conference committee reports. Signed, Status of Northstar commuter rail for Federal funding April 2002 As of the recently released Proposed Allocations of Funds for Fiscal Year 2003, the Federal Transit Authority for the third straight year categorizes the Northstar commuter rail project as a "Recommended" project for federal funding in what's called the "New Starts Program." But there are also 27 other transit projects in that category from across the country with which Minnesota is competing for federal funds. The competition is fierce. Our advantage is in the strong Congressional support for Northstar. Congress has been providing Northstar with sufficient funding to move the project through each stage of development every year since 1998. Our support at the federal level has been bi-partisan, including Minnesota's U.S. Senators over the years. President Bush's 2003 budget already includes funding for Northstar. Only five transit projects are singled-out for funding in the President's budget, and Northstar is one of them. Even though it is only a portion of the funding needed, it is a clear signal that Northstar is a favored project. Our missing piece is state funding. Of the 27 recommended projects, 14 already have financial commitment from their respective states. Only with state financial commitment will the federal government give approval and funding for a project to be developed. If the Legislature does not provide funding this year, it's very likely that many of the other projects on the list will surpass Northstar and take the federal money that could otherwise come to Minnesota. Minnesota has a history of not getting its fair share of federal funding. Minnesota ranks 45th in net return of federal tax dollars paid. Forty-four states are doing better than we are in getting a return on federal tax dollars paid.* if the Minnesota Legislature fails to support Northstar this year, tax dollars Minnesotans pay to the federal government will once again go to other projects in other states, such as projects in Seattle, Salt Lake City, Charlotte and San Diego that have state funding commitment. * Source: The Northeast-Northwest Institute at www.NEMW.org/taxburd.htm NORTHSTAR @ $270M (Through Preliminary Engineering = 30% Design and Engineering) RULES OF THUMB ACTUAL(includes all Northstar Corridor costs) Mn/DOT State Aid Rule Ao Design and Engineering: 8-10% x % of project completed $27M (10%) x 30%. $8.1M B. ElS (completed): 1% + 2.7M $10.8M TOTAL $5.95M + 0.75M $ 6.7M II. Industry Standard for Commuter Rail Rule A. Design and Engineering: 3-6% of total project cost through Preliminary Engineering - $10.8M (4%) B. ElS (completed): 1% + 2.7M TOTAL $13.5M NORTHSTAR: An FTA Recommended Project $5.95M +0.75M $ 6.7M Cleveland, Ohio - $300M of which: 13M - Design & Engineering and ElS through Preliminary Engineerinng FTA Review of $13M: Fair and Comparable to Industry Standards 18 minis~ration's university transportation research account: Provided further, That $100.000,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit Ad- ministration's job access and reverse commute gear,_ts pro, ram_: ,Pro; vided further, That $.2,,272,80q, 000 s. hall be ps. id to Transit Admints~ration s capitat irrvesrment grants account. CAPITz-L INVESTMENT GRANTS CINCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS) For n¢cessar'y expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5308, 5309, 5318, and 5327, $568,200,000. to remain available until expended: Pro- vided, That no more than $2,841,000,000 of budget authority shall be available for thece purposes: Provided further, That there shall be available for f~ed guideway modernization, $1,136,400,000; there shail be avaihrb~e for the replacement_, r_eh=bilit, a~io?., and, p. ur- related facilities, $568,200,000, togerner, wrrn~ ¢orred ~rom "Federal Transit Adrnini.~tratwn, ~ ormma ~ranr~ ; aha 'tX~;; "shall be available for new $1,136,400,000. together with $1,488.,~.40 of. the f~.. ,m.aae a. vau-. able under '7~ederal Transit Admmrstratwn, ~'qp_r. ra~ rnvesrrnsnr grants' irt Public Law 205-277; to be available as follows: $10,296,000 for Alaska or Hawaii ferry projects; $1,000,000 for ~he Albuquerque, New Mexico, light rail project; $25.000,000 for the Atlanta, Georgi¢r, ~orth line extension project; $I3,000,000 for the Baltimore, Maryland, centrat t~g~tt tau transgt double track project; $I,500,000 for the Baltimore, Maryland, rail transit project; $2,000,000 for the Birmingham, Alabama, transit corridor project; $10,631,245 for the Boston, Massachusetts, South Boston Piers. transitway project; $500,000 for the Bostqn, Massachusetts, urban ring transit project: $7,000,000 for tlv¢ Charlotte, North Carolina, South cot- ridor light rail transit project; $32,750,000 for the Chicago, Illinoi¢, Douglas bran~h re. construction project; $55,000,000 for the Chicago, Illinois, METRA eomrnu~er rail and line extensgon projects; $3,000,000 for the Chicago, Illinoi¢, Bavenswood teton. struetion project; $6,000,000 for the Cleveland, Ohio. Euclid corridor trans- portation project; $70,000,000 for the Dallas, Texas, North Central li§h~ rail transit extertzion project; $55,000,000 for the Derwer, Colorado, Southeast corridor light rail transit project; $I92.492 for the Denver, Colorado, Southwest corridor light rail transi~ project; $150,000 for the Des Moines, Iowa, DSM bus feasibility project; 19 $200,000 for the Dubuque, Iowa, light rail feasibility project; $25,000,000 for the Dulles corridor, Virginia, bus rapid transit project; $27,000,000 for the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Tri. County commuter rail upgrades project; $2,000,000 for the Fort Worth, Texas, Trinity railway ex. press, project; $750,000 for the Grand Rapids, Michigan, Y[TP metro area, rna~or corridor project; $12,000,000 for Honolulu, Hawaii, bus rapid transit projec, t; $10,000,000 for the Houston, Texas, Metro advanced transit project; $300,000 for the Iowa, Metrolink light rail feasibility project; $1.$00,000 for the Johnson County, Kansas.Kansas City, Missouri, 1-35 commuter rail project; $2,000,000 for the Kenosha.Racine-Milw~ukee, Wisconsin, commuter rail extension project; $55,000,000 for the Largo, Maryland, metrorail extension projee~; 2.000,000 for the Little Rock, Arkansas. river rail project; I4, 744,420 for the Long Island Rail Road, New York. East Side access project; $9,289,557 for the Los Angeles, California, North Holly- wood e~tension project; $7,500,000 for the Los Angeles, California, East Side cor- ridor light rail transit project; $3,000,000 for the Lowell, Massachusetts-Nashua, New Hampshire commuter rail extension project; $12,000,000 for the Maryland fMA~C) commuter rail ira- provements projects; $19,170,000 for the Memphis, Tennessee, Medical center rail extension _ project; $$,000,000 ]'or the Miami, Florida, South Miami-Dade ~ busway extension project; [ $10,000,000 for the Minneapolis-Rice, Minnesota, Northstar ~ corridor commuter rail pro]cci; ~ . $50,000,000 for the M'inneapolis.St. Paul, Minnesota, His. watha corridor light rail transit project; $4,000,000 for the Nashville, Tennessee, East corridor com- muter rail project; $141,000,000 for the New Jersey Hudson-Bergen light rail transit project; $15.000.000 for the New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal Street car line project; $1,200,000 for the/New Orleans, Louisiana, Desire corridor streetcar project; $2,000,000 for the New York, New York, Second Avenue subway t~roject; $20.000,000 for the Newark-Elizabeth, New Jersey, rail link project; $2,500,000 for the Northeast Indianapolis, Indiatm, down- town corridor project; 2O $2,500,000 for the Northern Indiana South Shore com- muter rail project; $6~500,000 for the Oeeanside,Escondido. California, light rail extension project; $500~000 for the Ohio, Central Ohio North corridor rail (COTA) project: $5,000,000 for the Pawtucket-TI~ Green, Rhode Island, com. muter rail and maintenance facility project; $9,000,000 for the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Schgykil! Valley metro project; $10,000,000 for the Phoenix, Arizona, Central Phoenix/ East Valley corridor project; $8,000,000 for the Pittsburgh, Penn6~ytvania, North Shore cor~nector ligh~ rail transit projec~; $28.000,000 for the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, stage II light rail transit reconstruction project; $64,000~000 for the Portland, Oregon, Interstate MAX light rail transit extension project; $20,000,000 for the Puget Sound, Washington, RTA Sound- er commuter rail project; $9,000,000 for the Raleigh, North Carolina, Trlag£le tran- sit project; $328,000 for the Sacramento, Californig, light rail transit extension project; $14,000,000 for the SaZt Lake City~ Utah, CBD to Univer- sity light rail transit project; $3,000,000 for the Salt Lake City, Utah, Universit~ Medical Center light rail tranzit ext'ension project; $60,000.000 for the San Diego, California, Missiog Valley Ec~t light rail transit extension project; $1.000,000 for the San Diego, California, Mid Coast cot- ridor project; $75,675,790 for the San Francisco, California, BART exten- s~on to ~he airport project; $113,336 for the San Joee, California, Tasman West light rail trar~sit project; $40,000,000 for the San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tren Urbano project; $1,700,000 for the Sioux City, Iowa, light rail project; $28,000,000 for the St. Louis-St. Clair. Missouri, metrolink extension project; $5,000,000 for the Stamford, Connecticut, urban tran$itway project; $3,000.000 for the Stockton, California, Ali'amont commuter rail project; $3,000,000 for the Virgoinia Railway Express station ira. provements project; $500,000 for the Washington County, Oregon, Wilsonville to Beaverton commuter rail project; $2.500,000 for the Wasilla, Alaska, alternative route project; and $400,000 for the Yosemite, California, area regional tran~- portatior~ system project. M. edttonic, Inc. 710 Medtronlc Par{o~uy Minneapolis, MN 55432.5604 wwv. medtronic.com 763.514.4000 March 22, 2002 The Honorable Steve Sviggum 1_.0_3.. S~Lat~Q~_C. e~B u._ild~ng lO0 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155-1206 RE: Medtronic Transportation Positions Dear Representative Sviggum: Medtronic is the world's leading medical technology company with nearly 6,000 high paying jobs located here in Minnesota. For more than 50 years, we have been proud to call Minnesota home. When we decided to invest $139 million in our world headquarters on 1-694 at TH 65 in Fridley, we knew there were transportation issues that would have to be addressed in order to get our employees and thousands of annual visitors to and from our facility safely and efficiently. Phase I of our operation (530,00 square foot) is now fully functioning, and the transportation problems we feared face us every day. While manageable now, these problems must be resolved before we begin to think about the viability of Phases II and Ill of the site (1.1 million additional square feet). You have a unique opportunity during the 2002 Legislative session t0'provide the funding that would alleviate the difficulties we ate experiencing now, difficulties that prohibit us · from considering expansion opportunities at the site. · We respectfully request you support the following issues in the remaining days of this Session: 1) We, and our neighbors in Fridle~', need a third through lane in each direction from Medtronic Parkway just north of 1-694 across Moore Lake to an upgraded signalized intersection at 61~t Avenue N.E., including a walkway along the eastslde of the causeway. We encourage your support of gas tax increases to provide the funds needed to accomplish this improvement as soon as possible. The City of Fridley and MN/DOT have worked together to bring this project to the point that it can be placed under contract for construction this year. The project is "Ready To Go." Wher~ Life Depends on Medical Technology Medtronic Transpo~ation Positions March 22, 2002 Page 2 2) We, and our Fridley neighbors, also need the Northstar Corridor Commuter Rail Project fully funded. That means $120 Million in General Fund Bonding to provide the state's match of Federal funds so that this project can move forward on schedule. With the Fridley Train Station located at 61't & East River Road, many of our employees would benefit from the opportunity to use transit services. The tracks already exist and the sooner we can put trains on them, the better for ali of us.': Please find attached to this letter additional information on the TH 65 and Northstar Commuter Rail Projects. Theae projects will provide Medtronie and our neighbors with badly needed transportation and transit services that will better serve oar world headquarters facility and the State of Minnesota. Thank you for your consideration and for your leadership on behalf of Minnesota. Very truly yours, David D. Etzwiler Director, Community ~q~ffairs Attachment 'Medt, ronic's Position on the TH 65 Causewa~t Medtronic, along with other conunercial enterprises north of 1-694 in Fridley and beyond, strongly supports the TH 65/Moore Lake Causeway Project to provide access to our facilities in a saf~ and ~ffi~ient manner. The TH 65/Moore lake Causeway project is needed to safely and efficiently serve the estimated 3,000 new jobs the Medtronic Corporate campus is expected tO generate along with ancillary commercial facilities such as hotel and restaurant facilities along the corridor. The TH 65/Moore Lake Causeway is needed to reduce congestion on streets that serve the residential neighborhoods abutting the campus. Previous improvements have helped, but additional lanes are.needed to reduce delays, improve access, improve goods.movement efficiency and reduce accidents. Medtronic supports other transit service options to further address congestion issues, The TH 65/Moore Lake Causeway project is needed to reduce carbon monoxide emissions caused by the present congestion on TH 65 from 1-694 to W. Moore Lake Drive. The proposed improvement would reduce carbon monoxide emissions by 40% daily, This project meets the essential test of good public policy, as it is consistent with the Metropolitan Council's Development Guide, including the Transportation Policy Plan and the Regional Blueprint. This project supports many of the explicit policies of both documents. Medtronic's Position on the Northstar Corridor Medtronic strongly supports full funding by the Legislature for the Northstar Commuter Rail Project as a viable and needed lxansportation option. · The Northstar Project will help to alleviate growth in congestion by taking nearly 10,000 vehicles off the roads each day, the equivalent of 1~ lanes of traffic during peak usage. · The Northstar Project provides an excellent retum on investment as the rail lines are in place and can be readied for passengers in a relatively short period of time. The Northstar Project is a critical transportation element for the rapidly growing northwest suburbs and the immediate corridor communities. Medtronic has made its commitment to provide thousands of employment opportunities to residents in the North Metro area. Safe, efficient, and effective transportation options including the Northstar Corridor are necessary for us carry out that commitment. FLOOR DEBATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATWES MARCH 14, 2002 Speaker of the House: The Representative from Anoka, Rep. Tingelstad. Rep. Tingelstad: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Well I hope everybody's paying attention. seeing politics at it's worst. This is a game. Tonight you are (applause) I know emotions are really running high, and I gotta tell you this Northstar legislation is the toughest bill I've ever carried. But if you believe in something, if it's going to work, you follow it through to the end. You know through this process I've lost a lot of friends, and I feel bad about that because I really thought you were my friends. I've been called greedy. I've been called a caucus buster. I'm really a bad person over here for doing what I think is right, for doing what people in my community say we need! Let me tell you. We are underrepresented here in the House of Representatives. After Tuesday we get some new maps for redistricting. There's gonna be four more members from Anoka County, Sherburne County, Benton County - then we get the correct representation for an area that is really important to our state. This just drives me crazy. I can't believe these games. What's come up here? Right now we're on the homeless issue. Okay they want us to vote against homeless. Next we have anti-terrorism equipment grant. Okay they want us to vote against that. But the killer of all. Student per pupil funding. This is getting ridiculous. Mr. Speaker I appreciate the process we've gone through tonight. I appreciate that you allowed us to follow the process. In the transportation finance committee Rep. Westerberg had the amendment for $60 million. He got the votes. It went on the bill. What happened? The bill was pulled. So next, the bill failed, they voted no on the bill because it had the Northstar amendment on it. Okay, next step. We do our work. Capital Investment. I offer the amendment for $30 million. It goes on. After working really hard with all the Capital Investment .,. Capital Investment Committee thought it was right. It went on. So what happens next? It goes to Ways and Means and it gets peeled off. You don't even leave me a respectable 8 or 9 million to negotiate with the Senate - you zero it out! And here we are back at the House. We follow the process again. 71 votes. Bi-partisan. This is a sham all these amendments! Members, we're trying to stay away from bad politics, and I think tonight we're giving bad politics quite a name. (applause)