I’m overdue to provide an update on what is happening with the Rice County Highway Cost Participation Policy and its funding of sidewalks and paths. At the April 7 County Board meeting, the commissioners decided that their transportation committee, consisting of Commissioners Plaisance and Docken and county highway engineer Dennis Luebbe, would consider the matter at an April 15 meeting.

Prior to that meeting, I mailed a letter (see below) and copies of the old and current cost participation policy to the commissioners. In the letter I asked them to consider  a simple compromise position: moving the sidewalks and bike paths from the “not eligible” for county participation category to the “potential County participation” category. This is essentially the “case-by-case” funding option that has been discussed as an option.

The transportation committee meetings are not open to the public, but last Friday I called my commissioner, Jeff Docken, to ask what action the committee took. He said that they decided to ask the County Board to consider two options at an upcoming meeting: keeping the current policy or changing it to the “case-by-case” or “potential funding” option that I presented in my letter. I believe he said it would be at a work session, probably May 5, but we should keep an eye on the Board’s agenda for its upcoming meetings.

It remains important for members of the public to let their county commissioner know their views on this subject. Please consider contacting them or writing a letter to the local paper. See below for more information, as well as the text of the letter I submitted.

April 7 County Board Work Session

Several of us advocates spoke again at the April 7 County Board work session, including a Faribault city council member and Jon Denison, a Northfield city council member. During the meeting, two commissioners, Plaisance and Gillen, voiced their strong concerns about funding sidewalks and paths in urban areas. They view the county’s transportation task as maintaining the current road system. Their anxiety is high about being able to maintain the roads in the current budget crisis. They fear having to revert paved roads to gravel roads. Plaisance thinks sidewalks should only be funded by cities through assessment of adjacent residents, though he did say the county may need to be open to helping cities with paths on school property. Gillen voiced his objection to the cost of portions of the Mill Towns Trail, though it is not funded by the county.

Commissioner Malecha is  open to the compromise “case by case” funding option, and Commissioner Docken seems to be open to that as well. The other commissioner, Bauer, did not state a position during the April 7 meeting.

My letter to the County Board

April 13, 2009

Dear Rice County Commissioners,

I would like to address the issue of the Rice County Cost Participation Policy for Cooperative Roadway Construction Projects as it relates to sidewalks and shared-use paths in urban areas, and I’d like to propose a simple compromise solution that I believe would give the county the greatest flexibility in managing its transportation system.

As a Rice County property owner and taxpayer I appreciate the fact that the Board of Commissioners is trying to best use its resources to maintain its large road system, and I understand the extraordinary budgetary pressures the county faces. I also understand that these issues were factors in deciding to change the cost participation policy last summer. However, I do not agree that the new policy fully serves the transportation needs of county residents.

While I would prefer that the county reinstate its previous cost participation policy, I suggest this simple change to the current policy: move “Sidewalks” and “Bituminous Bike Path[s]” to the list of “potential” county participation items. I have enclosed copies of the old and new cost participation policy, with the suggested changes marked in pen.

As I said, these changes would give the county the greatest flexibility in implementing its transportation vision. They would allow the county to work with cities to address the needs of pedestrians, children, bicyclists, the elderly, and the handicapped as they seek to move along and across county roads in urban areas. They would allow the county to address important safety issues and work with school districts, non-profit organizations such as retirement homes, and others to address problem areas. It would allow the county to include sidewalk and path facilities for these groups in its highway capital improvement plan if it makes sense to do so. In many cases plans for such facilities may increase the chances of obtaining additional federal and state grants for transportation projects. Without these changes, the county is severely restricted in its options to address sidewalks and paths.

Furthermore, I suggest changing the term “Bituminous Bike Path” to “Bituminous Shared-Use Path” to reflect the fact that pedestrians, runners, wheelchair users, and inline skaters can use these paths as well as bicyclists. Shared-use path is the term used by MnDOT and other transportation authorities.

The cost participation policy only applies to projects in the County Capital Improvement Plan. In discussing the issue, I believe that the commissioners should know what percentage of the county transportation/highway budget is spent through projects in the capital improvement plan. I ask that they obtain this information from Mr. Luebbe.

Sincerely,

Bill Ostrem, Chair
Northfield Area Task Force on Nonmotorized Transportation
cc: Mr. Weiers, Mr. Luebbe

This entry was posted on Monday, April 20th, 2009 at 7:26 am and is filed under Biking/Walking, Northfield, Politics, Transportation.