04/06/2021 - City Council Public Works CommitteeAGENDA
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
April 6, 2021
(Virtual Meeting after conclusion of Regular Council Meeting)
I.ADOPT AGENDA
II.WATER METER PROGRAM - SURCHARGE APPEALS
III.SPEED LIMIT LEGISLATION UPDATE
IV.CROSSWALK POLICY UPDATE
V.OTHER BUSINESS
VI.ADJOURNMENT
1
II.Water Meter Replacement/Repair Program
Surcharge Appeals
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Provide direction to City staff regarding the final disposition of
the Water Meter Replacement/Repair (R/R) Program (City Code 3.05) surcharge for the identified
properties in accordance with the related City Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
•On May 15, 2012, the City Council adopted an amendment to City Ordinance 3.05 regarding
the Rules and Regulations relating to Municipal Utilities that requires all properties connected
to the municipal water utility to permit the city's designated utility employee onto the
property and within the structure for purposes of the inspection, repair or replacement of
the water meter. This action, in essence, implemented the Water Meter Replacement/Repair
(R/R) Program to ensure accurate water use measurement and payment.
•Part of the amendment, and accordingly the Water Meter R/R Program, incorporated a fee
schedule that provided for a surcharge to be placed against utility billing accounts for those
properties that either didn't schedule an inspection or did not bring the identified deficiency
into compliance within the prescribed time frame.
•The Surcharge Fee is $150 per month for Single Family properties and $500 per month for all
others.
•In anticipation of appeals, the Council directed the Public Works Committee to review any
appeals and provide their recommendations back to the Council under the Consent Agenda.
Staff has recently heard from the following property owners who want to appeal a related
surcharge.
•The following surcharge appeals are being presented to the Public Works Committee for the
purpose of the corresponding recommendation for future Council action. The properties
have been found to be in compliance with City Code regarding the Water Meter R/R Program.
As a result of the individual reviews, the related surcharge appeals should be recommended
to be supported (waive surcharge) or denied.
o John Okell, 1514 Lone Oak Road: Water Meter Program – Remove $150 surcharge (utility
account)
o Megan Pannier, 3582 Baltic Avenue: Water Meter Program – Remove $150 surcharge
(utility account)
o Lois Schaaf, 515 Chapel Lane: Water Meter Program – Remove $150 surcharge (utility
account)
o Craig Madsen, 3984 Stonebridge Drive: Water Meter Program – Remove $150 surcharge
(utility account)
o John Forse, 3934 Thames Avenue: Water Meter Program – Remove $150 surcharge
(utility account)
o Thao Pham, 733 Windmill Court: Water Meter Program – Remove $150 surcharge (utility
account)
o Charlene Larson, 4587 Maple Leaf Circle: Water Meter Program – Remove $150 surcharge
(utility account)
2
o Hunter Way, 1863 Covington Lane: Water Meter Program – Remove $150 surcharge
(utility account)
o Jim Tietz, 1219 Balsam Trail East: Water Meter Program – Remove $150 surcharge (utility
account)
o Timothy Riordan, 1095 Kirkwood Drive: Water Meter Program – Remove $150 surcharge
(utility account)
o Leo Merman, 4725 Sunne Point: Water Meter Program – Remove $150 surcharge (utility
account)
o James Sudduth, 3310 Donald Avenue: Water Meter Program – Remove $150 surcharge
(utility account)
o Brad Schwichtenberg, 4631 Penkwe Way: Water Meter Program – Remove $150
surcharge (utility account)
o Mariya Bowen, 4813 Whispering Court: Water Meter Program – Remove $150 surcharge
(utility account)
3
III.SPEED LIMIT LEGISLATION UPDATE
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Receive an update from City staff regarding statutory
authority that allows Minnesota cities to establish speed limits on City streets without
MnDOT approval. Previous updates on the impacts resulting from this action taken during
the 2019 Legislative Session were provided on June 18, 2019, and July 7, 2020.
BACKGROUND:
•On August 1, 2019, the following statutory language was enacted:
o Cities authorized to set certain speed limits. Article 3, sections 34 and 35 amend
Minn. Stat. §169.14, subd. 5 and add a new subdivision to Minn. Stat. §169.14.
The provisions authorize a city to establish speed limits for city streets under the
city’s jurisdiction without conducting an engineering and traffic investigation. The
subdivision does not apply to township roads, county highways or trunk highways
in the city. A city that establishes speed limits using this authority must implement
speed limit changes in a consistent and understandable manner. The city must
erect appropriate signs to display the speed limit. A city that uses the authority
under this provision must develop procedures to set speed limits based on the
city’s safety, engineering and traffic analysis. At a minimum, the safety,
engineering and traffic analysis must consider national urban speed limit
guidance and studies, local traffic crashes and methods to effectively
communicate the change to the public.
o Residential roadway definition modified. Article 3, section 32 amends Minn.
Stat. §169.011, subd. 64. It expands the definition of “residential roadway” to
include “an area zoned exclusively for housing that is not a collector or arterial
street.” This has the effect of allowing cities and towns to adopt a 25 mph speed
limit on residential roadways without a traffic engineering study and MnDOT
approval.
•Prior to the adoption of these new statutes, the ability of a city to change speed limits
was limited and required a city to request MnDOT to conduct an engineering and traffic
study on the city street. After the report was completed, MnDOT would then set the
speed limit on the city street. The new law allows a city to adopt speed limits on its
streets without MnDOT involvement.
•The Public Works Committee has indicated in previous updates that they see no need
for a change in the City’s speed limits on local residential streets from the current 30
mph limit and encouraged City staff to coordinate with neighboring cities on this item
for consistency in application. The importance of cooperation with neighboring cities’
staff has been emphasized to ensure that there is speed limit consistency for public
safety and enforcement purposes with suburban neighborhoods often crossing city
boundaries.
•Discussions with staff from other Dakota County cities has found uniform support for
such consistency. There has also been similar support to leave speed limits as they are
and continue to process speed studies through MnDOT. City staff is part of a Dakota
County public works/engineering professionals’ group that is coordinating efforts on this
new local authority. Discussions amongst this CONDAC (Coalition Of Northern Dakota
4
Area Communities) group within the past two weeks indicates that such support
continues to remain consistent.
•MnDOT and their State Aid Office have completed a Statewide Speed Limit Vision Project
utilizing a working group with many varied stakeholders (law enforcement, bike/ped
groups, County, City, etc), which had representation from the City Engineers Association
of Minnesota (CEAM), including our Transportation Operations Engineer, Tim Plath, as
the chair of the CEAM Traffic Safety Committee. The results of their efforts created a
“unified vision” on the speed limit legislation and all speed limits on local roadways
across the state. (www.mnspeedlimitvision.org)
o Vision Statement – Speed limits are set with an emphasis on all users with key
influences of safety, engineering, and surrounding land use.
o Core Values – Speed limits are:
Affected by community context, land use, and road design.
Governed by voluntary compliance through education and accepted social
norms.
Established through consistent technical evaluation and applied equitably across
all communities.
•League of Minnesota Cities staff has provided informal guidance on the speed limit
legislation, indicating that while the locals now have authority to set speeds on their
streets, the industry standard of setting speeds remains the same (85th percentile, with
other factors possibly evaluated per the MN Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices).
•Minnesota’s Local Road Research Board (LRRB), the state’s leader in research of matters
addressing County and City roads, is currently undertaking two studies related to the
2019 changes in the authority for establishing speed limits in cities. The first study,
Guidelines for Determining Speed Limits on Municipal Roadways, will help guide cities
through a documented process that can be followed to conduct the required safety,
engineering and traffic analysis. This study will adhere to the Statewide Speed Limit
Vision by creating a quick reference guide for setting speeds on local roads and
answering some questions related to the changes in state law. Another LRRB study,
Impact of Speed Limit Changes on Urban Streets, is evaluating the impact of new speed
limits on driver behavior in locations where they have been enacted and developing
guidance for cities on when speed limit changes are likely to achieve their desired effect.
Study results are anticipated to be available in 12 to 15 months.
•On May 12, 2015, the City Council received a presentation on the Local Application of
the Strategic Highway Safety Plan from Howard Preston (CH2M Hill, Inc.), the state’s
consultant for the project. St. Paul and Eagan were the two cities that participated in
the local application of the safety plan review. Eagan was found to have no safety issues
with the speed limits at that time, which are consistent with the current speed limits.
•The cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Edina, St. Louis Park, and Golden Valley have already
utilized their new authority to reduce both residential and collector street speed limits,
some to speeds of 20 and 25 miles per hour. The way this has been accomplished is
being disputed and is primarily reliant on city border signs that state new city-wide speed
limits without accompanying signs on the individual streets. This method does not
support enforcement. The actions are getting noteworthy press and media attention.
•City of Eagan staff have received expressed interest, but no formal requests, to change
speed limits on local residential streets. Staff will keep the Public Works Committee
apprised of any requests received in the future.
5
•Public Works staff will present an update and address any questions the Committee may
have on this item.
ATTACHMENTS (0):
6
IV.CROSSWALK POLICY UPDATE
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Receive information from City staff on a proposed update
of the City’s Crosswalk Policy.
BACKGROUND:
•The City’s current Crosswalk Policy was adopted by the City Council on June 4, 1996, in
response to 1996 Minnesota legislation revising the traffic laws by requiring vehicles to
stop rather than yield to pedestrians within a crosswalk. The Crosswalk Policy has been
used annually by staff in designing CIP street projects and even as recently as March 5,
2019, by this committee in consideration of a resident’s request for a crosswalk on Town
Centre Drive.
•In addition to the significant extent of time that has passed since the policy’s adoption,
nearly 25 years, several additional factors have been developed that are noteworthy
considerations in the evaluation of present-day crosswalks in Eagan.
•In 2005, Congress approved funding for implementation of Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
programs in all 50 states. SRTS is an approach that promotes walking and bicycling to
school through infrastructure improvements, enforcement, tools, safety education, and
incentives to encourage walking and bicycling to school.
•The Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Master Plan (BPTMP) was completed this past
year. The BPTMP reflects current and future needs of the community regarding a bike
and pedestrian transportation system and accommodates a financially responsible way
of improving the system over the next twenty years. Incorporation of the BPTMP
recommendations will improve overall walkability and bike-ability in Eagan, and create
safe routes to parks, schools and other common walking and biking destinations for
travelers of the City.
•In part, because of the development of the Diffley Road School Area Improvements,
Dakota County has partnered with MnDOT and local transportation experts, including
City Engineer John Gorder, to produce the School Safety Assessment. The assessment
proactively addresses safety for students traveling to and from schools adjacent to
highways, focusing on those who walk and bike to school. There are about 50 schools in
Dakota County next to county and state roads. The recommendations developed as part
of the study will improve safety by identifying solutions in engineering, education and
enforcement.
•City staff, including Engineering, Streets, and Police, has reviewed the current crosswalk
policy and prepared an updated rough draft for future City Council consideration
incorporating the aforementioned resources. As indicated in most of the referenced
resources, the involvement of Police staff is necessary to address the recommended
enforcement aspect.
•Public Works staff will present details and address any questions the Committee may
have on this item.
ATTACHMENTS (0):
7