The URL can be used to link to this page

270184 WH17E - CITV CLERK COUfIC1I PINK - FINANCE G I TY OF SA I NT PAU L ��`�� CANARV - DEPARTMENT BLUE - MAVOR File NO. F � �cil Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul and the Metropolitan Transit Area entered into a Joint Powers Agreement dated June 21, 1977 , providing for the conduct of the preliminary engineering phase of the Downtown People Mover Transit System, hereinafter referred to as "DPM" ; and WHEREAS, Chapter 454 , Laws of Minnesota, 1977, provides that the preliminary engineering phase of the DPM shall include an analysis of prudent and feasible alternatives to a fixed guideway system that will achieve the development and other goals of the DPM; and WHEREAS, those funds previously committed by the Metropolitan Transit Area and the City of Saint Paul are inadequate to pay for the analysis of prudent and feasible alternatives to a fixed guideway system as mandated by Chapter 454, Laws of Minnesota, 1977; and WHEREAS, the description of the "scope of work" contained in paragraph 2 of the Agreement dated June 21, 1977 needs to be expanded to include this analysis in a more detailed form; and WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul and the Metropolitan Transit Area desire to amend the Agreement dated June 21, 1977 to include a more detailed scope of work and provide additional funding therefor according to the terms and conditions of the attached Amendatory Agreement. COUNCILIIEN Yeas Nays Requested by Department of: Butler Hozza [n Favor Hunt Levine _ __ Against BY Roedler Sylvester Tedesco Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY B`: Approved by ;Vlavor: Date Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council gY By WHITE - CITV CLERK PINK - FINANCE �7 COUIICIl �,��j•� CANARV - DEPARTMENT G I TY OF SA I NT PA 11 L BLUE - MAYOR ' FIIe NO. `� �" Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date -2- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the attached Amendatory Agreement is hereby approved and the proper City officials are authorized and directed to exaute said Agreement. COUNCILMEN Yeas Nays Requested by Department of: Butler � Hozza [n Favor Hunt � Levine __ Against BY Roedler Sylvester Tedesco D�C , � �i�-"�� Form A prov d by Cit rney Adopte�.k�v Council Date — �'it�ified P• s- by Council Secr�tary BY g} � Approved y Mav . Date App o ed by Mayor for ission to Council � By, BY pUBLISHED DEG 2 4 ��7 ~ � �"��.��'� AMENDATORY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT DOWNTOWN PEOPLE I�10VER TRANSIT SYSTEM � PRELIMINARY ENGIiJEERING T'rIIS AGREEr�iENT, made and entered into this day of , 1977, by and between the v1ETROPOLITAN TRAPISIT AREA, a public corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, acting by and through its governing body, THE METROPOL- � ITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION, hereinafter referred to as "2�STC" , and the CITY OF SAIVT PAUL, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "City" . WITNESSETH: � WHEREr'1S, iche City and P�ITC entered into a Joint Powers Agree- — ment dated June 21, 1977, providing for the conduct of a �r�liminary engineering phase of the Downtown People Mover Transit System, , hereinafter referred to as "DPM" ; and WHEREAS , Chapter 454 , Laws of Minnesota, 1977, provides that the preliminary engineering phase of the DPM shall include an � anal�sis of prudent and feasible alternatives to a fixed guideway system that will achieve the development and other goals of the DPM; and WHEREAS, those funds committed by the MTC and City are inadequate to pay for the analysis of prudent and feasible alterna- tives to a fixed guideway system as mandate� by Chapter 454 , Laws , of P�Iinnesota, 1977; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the agreement of June 21, 1977 to include a more detai�ed scope of work and additional funding therefore; and W1iERF;AS, tlle City and MTC pursuant to DZinn. Stat. Section _ _ .. , � .�. ,.. _ __. � � -2- 471.59, have the authority to enter into this Amendatory Agreement � and to do and perform the things herein agreed. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby mutually agree as follows : � 1. TERM - This Amendatory Agreement shall take effect upon execution by both parties and shall remain in effect according to the term set forth in the agreement dated June 21, 1977. 2 . SCOPE OF WORK - Attached hereto and made a part of this agreement as Exhibit A-1 is a study design for non-fixed guideway � alternatives. � 3. COMPLETION OF TASKS - The MTC and City shall assume respon- sibility for the completion of the tasks to whi.ch they are assigned ` under Exhibit A-1. 4. CONSULTANT SELECTION - The economic consultant previously , selected under the agreement dated June 21, 1977 shall perform se�vices for the conduct of tasks assigned to consultant under Exhibit A-1. 5. CONSULTANT CONTRACT - The MTC shall continue to be the con- tractor with the economic consultant, previously selected, for the completion of consultant tasks under Exhibit A-1. 6. FUNDING , CITY: The City shall provide Forty-five Thousand llollars ($45, 000. 00) in cash to compensate the economic consultant for work to be performed under Tasks 7 and 8 of Exhibit A-l. The City shall also provide services in lieu of cash for the completion of �asks which it assumes under Exhibit A-1. To the extent the Ci�y provides such services, a credit shall be given to the City toward its contribution of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars �$150, 000. 00) comrnitted in the agreem�nt dated June 21, 1977. � � -3- �� .� , .;`,, FUNDING - MTC: The MTC shall provide services in lieu of �� . ��=��' cash for the completion of those tasks which it has responsibility under Exhibit A-1. . 7. CONTRACT CONTINUATION - All terms and conditions of the agreement dated June 21, 1977 shall remain in full force and effect and its terms will apply to this Amendatory Agreement unless speci- fically modified or superceded by this agreement. IN WITIIE�SS WHEREOF, the parties have caused thi� agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the day written above. APPROVED AS TO FORA1 CITY OF SAINT PAUL \ By Its Mayor BY Its Director, Departr�ent of Finance and P�Ianagement Services By � Its City Clerk METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COP'lMISSION By Its Chief Administrator By ' Its Chairman By Its Director of Finance and Administration _. _,.._-,. .�f, '. • �� • �; • . �e,._`;;•'r . . �F��,.-� . . �. .EXHIBIT A-1 DRAFT STUDY DESIGN . FOR NON-FIXED GUIDEWAY . ALTERNATIVES TO � REVITALIZE ST. PAUL METRO CENTER (A Supplement to DPM Preliminary Engineering Study) CITY OF ST. PAUL METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION • .� _ November 10, 1977 . . . . -,� ' PREFACE Many discussions of this new transportation circulation concept, Downtown People Mover" (DPM) have focused on its major purpose--the revitalization of the central area in St. Paul or the Metro Center Area. The question is asked: could some non-fixed guideway action accomplish " the same revitalization? This supplemental study will examine both non-transportation and non-fixed guideway transportation elements that could enhance the metro center area. . In the conduct of this study, duplication of tasks in the basic DPM study will be avoided. In particular, the transportation elements contemplated as supplementary to any DPM will be analyzed in the DPM study. This supplemental study will address primarily the issues of development potential of the several elements. , • , -i- r � ��,.�� BACKGROUND The 1977 Minnesota Legislature required the Downtown People Mover (DPM) - Preliminary Engineering Study include "an analysis of the prudent and feasible alternatives �to a fixed guideway transportation system that will achieve the development and other goals of the people mover project." The DPM Steering Committee has concluded that the following transportation and non-transportation alternatives should be analyzed: TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES _ a. Shuttle bus in traffic � b. Shuttle bus in exclusive lanes � c. Di.me fare zone system " d. Free fare zone system e. Skyway extensions f. Skyway extensions with moving sidewalks , g. Van pools, car pools and shared ride taxis with pr.eferential treatment h. Downtown bus transfer at fringe (between shuttle bus and . regular route service? . i. Public improvement program; i.e. , streets, parking, mall computerized signals, garking restrictions, waiting areas, etc. • NON-TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES j. Staggered work hours k. Land assembly program for private development 1. New development tax subsidies m. Low interest development plans � -1- This study outline contains the plans to be used in analyzing these alternatives. It was agreed the test to be used could be a similar state contribution (equivalent to the 20� local share of the DPM or $11.2 million) to any, or a combination of, the above '�non-fixed guideway" alternatives, that woulcl' achieve the same development and other goals of the DPM project. A preliminary analysis using existing reports _� and data suggests alternatives a, b, c, g, h, and j could not singularly attract enough development. However, these alternatives in combination, or with others, might produce a viable al�ernative. MTC and City Staff will be responsible for the analysis of and reporting on alternatives a through j , while the economic consultant will be responsible for alternatives k through m. . Alternatives a through j are elements of the "Transportation Systems Managements (TSM) Program" being developed in this metropolitan area by the TAB/TAC process. UMTA's approval of the DPM project requires completion of the TSM element during preliminary engineering and funding for the analysis of � ' these elements are included in the MTC's and City' s TSM budgets. The analyses of alternatives k through m will cost approximately $45,000. The City of St. Paul, aided by the State, will provide these funds. These alternative analyses will be coordinated by the DPM Project Coordination Team, working with the economic consultant. Results will be presented to the DPM's Technical Task Force, Community ; i Advisory Committee and the Urban Development Committee for their review and comment after which the Coordination Team will present these analyses to the � DPM Steering Committee for review and concurrence. _ 1/ Transit, Transportation, Parking and Development Studies Conducted by the MTC, St. Paul and Others. � + , -2- / ' � . � � . � - • _ :,r For analysis purposes, the alternatives have been grouped as follows: . �`'��_,�,r TASK 1 - SHUTTLE BUS - This includes shuttle bus in traffic, shuttle bus %'i;*i ";_y: f/.: . _�!` in exclusive lanes and downtown bus transfer at fringe. TASK 2 - FARE ZONE - This includes dime and free fare zones. TASK 3 - SKYWAYS - This includes skyway extensions with and without moving sidewalks. TASK 4 - PARATRANSIT - This includes the use of commuter vans, car pools and shared-ride taxis and assc�iated preferential treatment. TASK 5 - PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS - This includes street improvements, parking, mall, computerized signals, parking restrictions, waiting areas, etc. TASK 6 - STAGGERED WORK HOURS _ ' TASK 7 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - This includes land assembly for private development, new development tax subsidies and low interest development plans. TASK 8 - SU2�IMARY REPOFcT - This would include a compilation of viable alternatives or parts thereof that represent an alternative way of utilizing state funds in combination with federal funds to revitalize the St. Paul Metro Center. � -3- " 1 : ' . __ _ . —sr TASK 1.0 - SHUTTLE BUS '� �� /� OVERV IEW " This task will examine the use of shuttle buses in.mixed traffic and in • exClusive lanes and the use of shuttle buses for downtown collection and distribution in conjunction with fringe bus terminals where most, if not all, regularly scheduled buses would terminate prior to entering the downtown area. Considerable work has already been conducted during the past several ye�.rs, including the following: . The Circulation of People in the St. Paul Central Area, March 1974 . Improving Transit Operations and Facilities in Downtown St. Paul, October 1976 . . A Study of Alternatives to Reverse F1ow Bus Lanes in Downtown Minneapolis, February 1976 . Third Avenue North Distributor (Minneapolis) Parking Feasibility Study, December 1976 � ' . Seventh Place Is Happening, October 1976 . Downtown St. Paul QT Bus System, November 1972 Through May 1974 SUBTASKS 1.1 Fteview the above background reports and other applicable local, state 'and federal reports relating to downtown bus circulation systems. 1.2 Develop preliminary shuttle bus system for the DPM alternative alignment � selected by the DPM Steering Committee for comparative analysis. 1.3 Prepare detailed operating plans (routes, schedules, vehicles, etc.) , estimate capital and operating costs, and describe benefits, constraints and problems. Include as appropriate, shuttle systems in mixed traffic, operatinq on exclusive lanes, preferential treatment and other bus related road improvements needed, including costs thereof. � r4- . . � . , ::t� 1.4 Analyze and document fringe bus terminals and associated shuttle bus system. 1.5 E�timate costs and describe benefits, constraints and problems associated with fringe terminals. 1.6 Prepare memorandum report on Shuttle Buses. RESPONSIBILITY MTC staff will assume responsibility for the conduct of this task, with support from the City of St. Paul. TASK 2.0 - FARE ZONES AVERVIEW • This task will examine the benefits and problems associated with downtown dime and free fare zones. In addition to the experience already available from downtown St. Paul and Minneapolis, experience from other cities (such as Seattle) will be solicited and reported. ' , SUSTASKS 2.1 Document MTC experience with the dime zone. , 2.2 Research and document non-Twin City experience with special and free fare systems. 2.3 Identify those efforts needed to improve the utilization of special fare zones, such as marketing, signing, re-routing, the implementation of associated fringe parking fac,ilities, etc. 2.4 Prepare draft memorandum report of experience, benefitsland problems, as well as the policies and facilities needed to improve the utilization of special fare zones. ` 2.5 Prepare final memorandum report. -5- _ . _ ... _. . .ns � . � , . ;� RESPONSIBILITY MTC staff will assume responsibility for the conduct of this task, with : support from the. City of St. Paul and Mn/DOT. _ , . TASK 3.0 - SKYWAYS OVERVIEW This task will examine skyway extensions with and without moving sidewalk assistance as a primary downtown people circulation system and as a distribution and collection system for transit systems (excluding the DPM as this is already covered in the preli.minary engineering scope of work) . SUBTASKS 3.1 Research the numerous St. Paul reports that contain plans and policies . � relating to skyway extensions. 3.2 Develop a comprehensive skyway plan taking into account previous planning. 3.3 Determine the feasibility of utilizing moving sidewalks within existing , or proposed extensions. � 3.4 Where feasible, incorporate moving sidewalks into proposed skyway � system or develop alternative skyway plan that utilizes moving sidewalks. � 3.5 Prepare memorandum report that includes costs, tentative schedule, usage estimate, benefits and problems. RESPONSIBILITY � St. Paul staff will assume responsibility for the conduct of this task, with support from the MTC. . , TASK 4.0 - PARATRANSIT OVERVIEW This task will examine the feasibility and benefits, including development benefits of supplementing regular route transit within paratransit including -6- . � , , _ �. commuter vans, car pooling and shared-ride taxis. Preferential treatment in the routing and parking of paratransit vehicles will also be considered. SUBTASKS - 4.1 Document local and non-local experience on the use of paratransit for downtown areas. 4.2 Consider preferential treatment opportunities in routing and parking paratransit vehicles. 4.3 Consider a paratransit plan that supplements and complements regular transit service that includes recommendations relative to the utilization of each option in a cost and service effective manner. 4.4 Examine the impacts of paratransit on the transportation system presently serving the downtowns. � 4.5 Estimate benefits including development benefits. 4.6 Prepare final memorandum report. - RESPONSIBILITY ti MTC staff will assume responsibility for the conduct of this task, witn support from the City of St. Paul and Mn/DOT. ' TASK 5.0 - PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS • OVERVIEW This task will examine street and pedestrian related improvements that could lead to improved surface travel in downtown St. Paul. The task will address items such as downtown street improvements (one-way streets, restricted turns, bus lanes, turning lanes, etc.) , revised parking policies (long-term, short-term and oi;--street parking and parking restrictions) , pedestrian malls, computerized signals, preferential treatment, waiting areas, and bus shelters. SUBTASKS 5.1 Review St. Paul Downtown Transportation Plans and Policies. -7- _ ._ , . � , _ .... _.. 5.2 Develop a surface transportation plan that considers pedestrian and transit needs such as pedestrian malls, shuttle bus routes, fare zone, paratransit and skyway connections, bus shelters, etc. � 5�.3 Develop cos�s. . . . . . .:. : • . _ � . . . .. . • . 5.4 Identify benefits and problems. 5.5 Prepare final memorandum report. RESPONSIBILITY � St. Paul staff will assume responsibility for the conduct of this task wi�h support from the MTC and Mn/DOT. TASK 6.0 - STAGGERED WORK HOURS OVERVIEW . � The MTC recently completed a study titled, "Variable Work Hours in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area." This task will examine that study to determine if potential exists to improve traffic flow, bus productivity, etc. SUBTASKS 6.1 Review study, especially as to how its findings could benefit downtown 5t. Paul. 6.2 Prepare draft memorandum that estimates development and other benefits. 6.3 Review with downtown development advisory committee. 6.4 Prepare final memorandum report. RESPONSIBILITY MTC staff will assume responsibility for the conduct of this task. 9 �8� `� +�1 t�'� �� ,_�,. '^��-�°�r,r , . �i'�i.�,� � � - � .�.�.!_�' . TASK 7.0 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Overview This task will evaluate the effects on reinvestment of leveraging state and local fi.mds in St. Paul's economy through alternative channels rather than through the construction of the Downtown People Mover (DPb4). The basic assumption is that the same amount of state and local funds that represent the nonfederal share of the proposed DPM project (approximately 511.2 million) would be deployed in other ways to stimulate economic development within the metro center area. ' The economic development potentials generated by the two alternative approaches -- with and without the DPM -- would be compared in terms of quantitative measurements of cost and bene£its to the city. The study of economic development potentials generated by the DPM investment is already underway under an UMTA feasibility grant. This task will supplement that ongoing work and provide outputs in comparable terms so that a meaningful comparison might be made. Under the DPM alternative, it is assumed not only that federal con- struction money and "Yoi.mg amendment" money (for station area development) would be available from lJbiTA to supplement state and local investments in the system, but also that other federal economic development money for which St. Paul is eligible would be available for local economic development activities. Under the non-DPM alternative evaluated in this task, the UMTA � money would not be available, but the other federal economic development funds would still be available to supplement state and local funds in . eligible development projects. Subtasks 7. 1 Evaluation of the St. Paul Economy a. Analysis of existing structure of employment in the city and metro center and definition of economic functions. , b. Evaluation of the relationship of the metro center economic fi.mctions and activities to those of the city, P�Iinneapolis and the 'I�vin Cities region. -9- - � - � c. �Anal.ysis of past trends in employment, economic activities, • labor force and population in St. Paul, Minneapolis and the remainder of the region. 7. 2 Analysis of the primary forces affecting past trends and future development opportunities in the metro center based upon the broader St. Paul economy. a. Assessment of the city�s positive assets and resources (labor force, market locations, public services and infrastructure, private sector capabilities, etc.) . b. Assessment of the city's major problems and restraints (obsolescence, security, limited land area, municipal tases and service costs, etc. ) . c. Assessment of the major exogenous or "outside" forces affecting . the city's economy (competition, changing industrial patterns, inflation, federal policies, etc. ) . 7.3 Evaluarion of inetro center's overall development prospects. a. Determination of specific types of economic activities for which the metro center has the greatest development potential in the future. , b. Analysis of the necessary conditions under which these development potentials might be realized. c. Projection of baseline conditions under assumptions of: 1) current conditions persist; and 2) maximum use is made of likely future . federal (other than UATTA) programs, but without stimulus of . $11.6 million additional in state and local money. 7.4 Identification of specific development project opportunities in the metro center that might be stimulated by public investments for economic development, such as: a. Industria}. development on unused or underused land. b. Riverfront and river-related projects. c. Housing and neighborhood revitalization > d. CBD office and service fi.mctions -10- - . . j • � ��;� - a e. Institutional and public developments. . f. Retention and e�cpansion of existing enterprises. 7.5 Formulation of public development approaches to realize feasible project potentials in the metro center. a. Analysis of the conditions that must be provided to assure project development and private investment. •. b. Definition of specific project "packages" with public (state and local) investment and policy requirements. c. Evaluation of the feasibility, timing and anticipated performance of all projects. . d. Identify relative and, where possible, absolute leverages gained from $11.2million in state and local fi.mds when used for: a) . land assembly; 2) tax abatement; 3) low interest loans; or 4) other . incentives to be identified during the research. 7.6 Assessment of the costs and benefits of the economic development investments stimulated by state and local funds. a. Estimates of new jobs, private investments, and tax revenuEs to be directly generated. _ - b. Estimates of the indirect benefits (in the same quantitative terms) to be generated by the public investment activities. c. Evaluation of the effects of these development activities on ' the overall economic structure of the city and on the prospects for continued viability in the future. 7. 7 Comparative evaluation of the costs and benefits of the two alternative economic development strategies (DPM and non-DPNi) . � a. Sensitivity analysis of the comparative potentials for optimum performance and results of the two approaches. b. Quantitative comparisons over comparable time periods (jobs, investments, tax returns) . -11- ; c. Comparison of the potential effects of the alternative approaches on specific economic sectors or types of activities within the city � _ , (central business district, inner-city neighborhoods and coimnercial districts, housing for different income groups, addaptive use of exis�ing buildings, business retention, etc.) . RESPONSIBILITY The economic consultant will be responsible for the conduct of this task with support from the City of St. Paul. TASK 8.0 - SUMP-SARY REPORT OVERVIEW � This task will examine the previous memorandum reports, select the most viable alternatives or portions thereof, and combine them in a coordinated manner that would produce a mechanism designed to assist in revitalizing the St. Paul Metro Center. . + SUBTASKS 8.1 Review the findings of Tasks 1 through 7 and select those elements that would complement one another or in fact are needed to increase the •viability of the individual alternatives. 8.2- Develop a strategy that integrates these alternative elements. 8.3 Estimate costs and benefits of this strategy. 8.4 Identify the pblicies, financial support and schedule needed to implement this strategy. 8.5 Prepare interim report of recommendations. , 8.6 Prepare a comparative analysis of the costs and benefits of the DPC4 and this alternative developmental mechanism. -12- 8.7 Prepare final report incorporating Task 8.6. RESPONSIBILITY The City of St. Paul and the� financial consultant will be responsible for the conduct of this task. r e -13- _ , , , _ _ . .., �� , .' PROGRAM BUDGET n�� kn� , TASK MAN-DAYS . MTC City CONSULTANT 1 15 2 2 5 1 3 3 10 4 1� 2 .. 5 5 5 6 5 5 7 - 200 g i5 10 2� TOTAL 58 35 225 SOURCE OF MANPOWER AND FUNDS St. Paul is scheduled to analyze the elements contained in this program plan as part of their contribution to the DPM ESI task such that the ' analysis can be used for both DPM Preliminary Engineering and this study of alternate ways to revitalize the St. Paul Metro Area. MTC staff wi11 contribute manpower under the Low Capital Alternatives, Project No. 203 (estimated at $11,600) . • St. Paul's cash contribution for the economic consultant will be $45,000. , -14- d � � . � ��..�.'� PROGFtAM SCHEDULE WEEKS AFTER START 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 35 36 37 1.0 SHUTTLE BUS 2.0 FARE ZONE 3.0 SKYWAY 4.0 PARATRANSIT ` � ' I 5.0 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT5 6.0 WORK HOURS i , � -- --- ----J--- * 7.0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT � i I -- --- ----i-- 8.5 INTERIM REPORT I i , ( 8.7 FINAL REPORT , * Task will require an elapsed time for five more months; however, some substantive conclusions should be available within 10 weeks. _ � —15— . � � �� AMENDATORY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER TRANSIT SYSTEM PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this lOth day of January , 197 8, by and between the METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AREA, a public corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, acting by and through its governing body, THE METROPOL- ITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION, hereinafter referred to as "MTC", and the � CITY OF SAINT PAUL, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "City" . WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City and MTC entered into a Joint Powers Agree- ment dated June 21, 1977, providing for the conduct of a preliminary engineering phase of the Downtown People Mover Transit System, hereinafter referred to as "DPM" ; and WHEREAS, Chapter 454, Laws of Minnesota, 1977, provides that the preliminary engineering phase of the DPM shall include an analysis of prudent and feasible alternatives to a fixed guideway system that will achieve the development and other goals of the DPM; and WHEREAS, those funds committed by the MTC and City are inadequate to pay for the analysis of prudent and feasible alterna- tives to a fixed guideway system as mandated by Chapter 454, Laws of Minnesota, 1977; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the agreement of June 21, 1977 to include a more detailed scope of work and additional funding therefore; and WHEREAS, the City and MTC pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section . � -2- 471.59, have the authority to enter into this Amendatory Agreement and to do and perform the things herein agreed. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby mutually agree as follows: 1. TERM - This Amendatory Agreement shall take effect upon execution by both parties and shall remain in effect according to the term set forth in the agreement dated June 21, 1977. 2 . SCOPE OF WORK - Attached hereto and made a part of this agreement as Exhibit A-1 is a study design for non-fixed guideway alternatives. 3. COMPLETION OF TASKS - The MTC and City shall assume respon- + sibility for the completion of the tasks to which they are assigned under Exhibit A-1. 4. CONSULTANT SELECTION - The economic consultant previously selected under the agreement dated June 21, 1977 shall perform services for the conduct of tasks assigned to consultant under Exhibit A-1. 5. CONSULTANT CONTRACT - The MTC shall continue to be the con- tractor with the economic consultant, previously selected, for the completion of consultant tasks under Exhibit A-1. 6. FUNDING - CITY: The City shall provide Forty-five Thousand Dollars ($45, 000. 00) in cash to compensate the economic consultan t for work to be performed under Tasks 7 and 8 of Exhibit A-1. The City shall also provide services in lieu of cash for the completion of tasks which it assumes under Exhibit A-1. To the extent the City provides such services, a credit shall be given to the City toward its contribution of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150, 000. 00) committed in the agreement dated June 21, 1977. J .� -3- FUNDING - MTC: The MTC shall provide services in lieu of cash for the completion of those tasks which it has responsibility under Exhibit A-l. 7. CONTRACT CONTINUATION - All terms and conditions of the agreement dated June 21, 1977 shall remain in full force and effect and its terms will apply to this Amendatory Agreement unless speci- fically modified or superceded by this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executEd by their duly authorized representatives as of the day written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM CITY OF SAINT P L � � � �� ^ By ` Its ay By , ��'��3� OOC� ts Directo , Department o i ance and ge nt Services �/d � C� By t City Cler METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION By �''V'• ✓l Its Ch ef Admin trator . By � Its C airm By � I Direc or Finance an Administra 'on Ptr�K� � �iNANCE�� C 7 T 1) TT * Council f}=�r�'"'`� C�WAH� - OCPARTMENT Ci ] TY O� \.J� 1 �T 1 1 � V 1/ File �O. ��, r �' / BLVE - MA�OR � ' ' " uncil Resolution Presented By , Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date ' RESOLVED, That upon recom¢nendation of the Mayor and pursuant to Section 10.07.4 of the Charter of the City of Saint Paul, there is hereby transferred the following: From: General Government Accounts Contingent Reserve-General �369-536-000 Transfer or Contribution to Budget Fund $45,000 o`�%i� To: City Planning 00140-537-000 Transfer or Contribution to Special Fund $45,000 • �o fund a study of alternatives to the Downtown People Mover. Approved as to Funding: Approved: � � �/ , C�l� 1�.ti-��,� :'�-7��-� Dir., Dept. o�' Finance & Manage. B get Dire or Services COUNCIL4IEN Yeas Na}•s Requested by Department of: Butler � Houa In Favor Hunt � Levine A gai nst BY Rcedler �� Tedesco Y Adopte _ ouncil: Date ��J 2 � t�` f`: Form Approved by ity ttor y ertified Pa:�e ouncil Secretaryr BY � A ro b�� :11a�•or: D F ��%7 Appro e Mayor for Sub ' n Council g �� 1./ - ��L " B�• Y i7E � C�� C�tww IM � FINANC[ ' � � ��1nC�� ^ NAFr • DCp�A1MENT G I T1 ON' SA I � T � A U L �� `!� UE �MALbR FIIC NO. - ��'" ' �cil Resolution esented By . Re(erred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul. and the Metropolitan Transit Area entered into a Joint Powers Agreement dated June 21, 1977 providing for the conduct of the preliminary engineering phase of the Downtown People Mover Transit System, hereinafter referred to as_ "DPM"; and WHEREAS, Chapter 454, Laws of Minnesota, 1977, provides that tiie preliminary engineering phase of the DPM shall include an analysis of prudent and feasible alternatives to a fixed guideway system that will achieve the development and other goals of the DPM; and WHEREAS, those funds previously committed by the Metropolitan _ Transit Area and the City of Saint Paul are inadequate to pay for + the analysis of prudent and feasible alternatives to a fixed . guideway system as mandated by Chapter 454, I,aws of Minnesota, 1977; and WHEREAS, the description of the "scope of work" contained in paragraph 2 of the Agreement dated June 21, 19'�� needs to be expanded to include this analysis in a more detailed form; and WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul and the Metropolitan Transit . . Area desire to amend the Agreement dated June 21, 1977 to include a more detailed scope of work and provide additional funding therefor according to the terms and conditiohs of the attached Amendatory Agreement. COUNCILNEN � .� ras Nays Requested by Department of: ' Butler H� In Favor Hunt � Levine Against BY Roedler Sylvester - � Tedesco Form Approved by City Attorney optcd b�� Council: Date rtified Passed b�• Council Secretary By . a 3}• ' proved b�• Nlavor: Date Approved by Mayor for Snbmission to Council 3� By . s;N:��"' Council �M�v�^TMENT GITY OF SAINT PAUL Fite N0. ' `' �� ' Council Resolution � . . �sented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date -2- . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the attached Amendatory Agreement is hereby approved and the proper City officials are authorized and directed to exeute said Agreement. � COUNC[L11EN Requested by Department of: � 'eas yays � - Butier In Fa�or - Hozza � Hunt � Levine Against By - Roedler Sylvater Tedesco s �s77 Form A pro� d by Cit rney ,dupted-b� Cuuncit Date O�C � ^ ertified P• . by Council Secretary By . By d� F_ I App o ed by Mayor for ission to Council ppro�cd p 31ay : Date • � . ey n ey " ' r , '�� .. W - .EXHIBIT A-1 DRAFT STUDY DESIGN FOR NON-FIXED GUIDEWAY ALTERNgTIVES � REVITALIZE ST. PAUL METRO CENTER (A Supplement to DPM Preliminary Engineering Study) CITY OF ST. PAUL METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION November 10, 1977 . •� T PREFAC� Many discussions of this new transportation circulation concept, Downtown People Mover" (DPM) have focused on its major purpose--the � revitalization of the central area in St. Paul or the Metro Center Area. The question is asked: could some non-fixed guideway action accomplish the same revitalization? This supplemental study will examine both non-transportation and non-fixed guideway transportation elements that could enhance the metro center area. In the conduct of this study, duplication of tasks in the basic DPM study will be avoided. In particular, the transportation elements � contemplated as supplementary to any DPM will be analyzed in the DPM study. This supplemental study will address primarily the issues of development potential of the several elements. -i- •I�� •1 BAQCGROUND The 1977 Minnesota Legislature required the Downtown People Mover (DPM) Preliminary Engineering Study include "an analysis of the prudent and feasible alternatives to a fixed guideway transportation system that will achieve the development and other goals of the people mover project." The DPM Steering Comonittee has concluded that the following transportation and non-transportation alternatives should be analyzed: TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES a. Shuttle bus in traffic b. Shuttle bus in exclusive lanes c. Diune fare zone system d. Free fare zone system e. Skyway extensions f. Skyway extensions with moving sidewalks g. Van pools, car pools and shared ride taxis with preferential treatment h. Downtown bus transfer at fringe (between shuttle bus and regular route service) i. Public improvement program; i.e. , streets, parking, mall computerized signals, garking restrictions, waiting areas, etc. NON-TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES j. Staggered work hours k. Land assembly program for private development 1. New development tax subsidies m. Low interest development plans -1- . ,• ' This study outline contains the plans to be used in analyzing these alternatives. Zt was aqreed the test to be used could be a similar state contribution (equivalent to the 20$ local share of the DPM or $11.2 million) . � to anp, or a combiiiation of;�'the �above' "non-fixed guideway" alternatides�, that'�vculd' � achieve the same development and other goals of the DPM project. A preliminary analysis using existing reports l� and data suggests alternatives a, b, c, g, h, and j could not singularly attract enough development. However, these alternatives in combination, or with others, might produce a viable alternative. MTC and City Staff will be responsible for the analysis of and reporting on alternatives a through �, while the economic consultant will be responsible for alternatives k through m. Alternatives a through � are elements of the "Transportation Systems _ Manaqements (TSM) Program" beinq developed in this metropolitan area by the TAB/TAC process. UMTA's approval of the DPM project requires c�npletion of the � TSM element during preliminary engineering and funding for the analysis of these elements are included in the MTC's and City's TSM budgets. The analyses of alternatives k through m will cost approximately $45,000. The City of St. Paul, aided by the State, will provide these funds. These alternative analyses will be coordinated by the DPM Project Coordination Team, working with the econoznic consultant. Results will be presented to the DPM's Technical Task Force, Community Advisory Coarmittee and the Urban Development Committee for their review and comment after which the Coordination Team will present these analyses to the DPM Steering Committee for review and concurrence. 1/ Transit, Transportation, Parking and Development Studies Conducted by the MTC, St. Paul and Others. -2- � .''� •y For analysis purposes, the alternatives have been grouped as follows: TASK 1 - SHUTTLE BUS - This includes shuttle bus in traffic, shuttle bus in exclusive lanes an�d downtown bus transfer at fringe. TASK 2 - FARE ZONE - This includes dime and free fare zones. TASK 3 - SKYWAYS - This includes skyway extensions with and without movinq sidewalks. TASK 4 - PARATRANSIT - This includes the use of commuter vans, car pools and shared-ride taxis and associated preferential treatment. TASK 5 - PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS - This includes street improvements, parking, mall, computerized signals, parking restrictions, waiting areas, etc. TASK 6 - STAGGERED WORK HOURS _ TASK 7 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - This incZudes land assembly for private development, new development tax subsidies and low interest development plans. TASK S - SIJNIIKARY REPORT - This would include a compilation of viable alternatives or parts thereof that represent an alternative way of utilizing state funds in combination with federal funds to revitalize the St. Paul Metro Center. -3- TASK 1.0 - SHIJTTLE BUS , OVERVIEW ` This task will ex�ine the use of shuttle buses •in=mixed tixaffic and`ia -� �� exclusive lanes and the use of shuttle buses for downtown collection and distribution in conjunction with fringe bus terminals where most, if not all, regularly scbeduled buses would terminate prior to entering the downtown area. Considerable work has already been conducted during the past several years, including the following: . The Circulation of People in the St. Paul Central Area, March 1974 . Improving Transit Operations and Facilities in Downtown St. Paul, October 1976 . A Study of Alternatives to Reverse Flow Bus Lanes in Downtown ' Minneapolis, February 1976 . Third Avenue North Distributor (Minneapolis) Parking Feasibility Study, December 1976 . Seventh Place Is Happening, October 1976 . Downtown St. Paul QT Bus System, November 1972 Through May 1974 SUBTASKS � 1.1 Review the above background reports and other applicable local, state and federal reports relating to downtown bus circulation systems. 1.2 Develop preliminary shuttle bus system for the DPM alternative alignment selected by the DPM Steering Committee for comparative analysis. 1.3 Prepare detailed operating plans (routes, schedules, vehicles, etc.) , estimate capital and operating costs, and describe benefits, constraints and problems. Include as appropriate, shuttle systems in mi.xed traffic, operating on exclusive lanes, preferential treatment and other bus related road improvements needed, including costs thereof. -4- �-� • � . 1.4 Analyze and document fringe bus terminals and associated shuttle bus system. 1.5 E�timate costs and describe benefits, constraints and problems associated with fringe terminals. 1.6 Prepare me�randum report on Shuttle Buses. RESPONSIBILITY . MTC staff will assume responsibility for the conduct of this task, with support from the City of St. Paul. TASR 2.0 - FARE ZONES OVERVIEW This task will examine the benefits and problems associated with downtown dime and free fare zones. In addition to the experience already available from downtown St. Paul and Minneapolis, experience from other cities (such as Seattle) will be solicited and reported. SUBTASKS 2.1 Document MTC experience with the dime zone. 2.2 Research and document non-R�ain City experience with special and free fare systems. 2.3 Identify those efforts needed to improve the utilization of special fare zones, such as marketing, signing, re-routing, the implementation of associated fringe parking facilities, etc. 2.4 Prepare draft memorandum report of experience, benefits and problems, as well as the policies and facilities needed to improve the utilization of special fare zones. 2.5 Prepare final memorandum report. -5- RESPONSIBILITY MTC staff will assume responsibility for the conduct of this task, with . , support .from the. City of St. .Paul and Mn/DOT. . . . ,. . . - . . . . . . .. . . .. . TASK 3.0 - SKYWAYS OVERVIEW This task will examine skyway extensions with and without moving sidewalk assistance as a primary downtown people circulation system and as a distribution and collection system for transit systems (excluding the DPM as this is already covered in the preliminary engineering scope of work) . SUBTASKS 3.1 Research the numerous St. Paul reports that contain plans and policies relating to skyway eactensions. 3.2 Develop a comprehensive skyway plan taking into account previous planning. 3.3 Determine the feasibility of utilizing moving sidewalks within existing or proposed extensions. 3.4 Where feasible, incorporate moving sidewalks into proposed skyway . system or develop alternative skyway plan that utilizes moving sidewalks. 3.5 Prepare memorandum report that includes costs, tentative schedule, usage estimate, benefits and problems. RESPONSIBILITY St. Paul staff will assume responsibility for the conduct of this task, with support from the MTC. . TASK 4.0 - PARATRANSIT OVERVIEW � This task will examine the feasibility and benefits, including developznent benefits of supplementing regular route transit within paratransit including -6- commuter vans, car pooling and shared-ride taxis. Preferential treai�►ent in the routing and parking of paratransit vehicles will also be considered. SIIBTASKS 4.1 Document local an�d non-lxal experience on the use of paratransit for downtown areas. 4.2 Consider preferential treat�nent opportunities in routing and parking paratransit vehicles. 4.3 Consider a paratransit plan that supplements and complements regular transit service that includes recoanaendations relative to the utilization of each option in a cost and service effective manner. 4.4 Examine the impacts of paratransit on the transportation system presently serving the downtowns. 4.5 Estimate benefits including development benefits. , 4.6 Prepare final memorandum report. RESPONSIBILITY MTC staff will assume responsibility for the conduct of this task, with support from the City of St. Paul and Mn/DOT. TASK 5.0 - PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WERVIEW This task will examine street and pedestrian related improvements that could lead to i.mproved surface travel in downtown St. Paul. The task will � address items such as downtown street improvements (one-way streets, restricted , turns, bus lanes, turning lanes, etc.) , revised parking policies (long-term, short-term and on-street parking and parking restrictions) , pedestrian malls, computerized signals, preferential treatment, waiting areas, and bus shelters. SUBTASKS 5.1 Review St. Paul Downtown Transportation Plans and Policies. -7- 5.2 Develop a surface transportation plan that considers pedestrian and transit needs such as pedestrian malls, shuttle bus routes, fare zone, paratransit and skyway connections, bus shelters, etc. 5�.3 Develop costis. .� ' :. . . . - . . .. .:. . : . , . . . ... 5.4 Identify benefits and problems. 5.5 Prepare final memora��a report. RESPONSIBILITY � St. Paul staff will assume responsibility for the conduct of this task with support from the MTC and Mn/�T. TASIC 6.0 - STAGGERED WORK HOURS O�TERVIEW The MTC recently completed a study titled, "Variable Work Hours in the ' Twin Cities Metropolitan Area." This task will examine that study to determine if potential exists to improve tsaffic flow, bus productivity, etc. SUBTASKS 6.1 Review study, especially as to how its findings could benefit downtowr� St. Paul. 6.2 Prepare draft memorandum that estimates development and other benefits. 6.3 Review with downtown development advisory coa�ittee. 6.4 Prepare final memorandum report. RESPONSIBILITY MTC staff will assume responsi.bility for the conduct of this task. -8- . . '. TASK 7.0 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Overview This task will evaluate the effects on reinvestment of leveraging state and local fimds in St. Paul's economy through alternative channels rather than through the construction of the Downtown People Mover (DPM). The basic assumption is that the same amount of state and local fimds that represent the norifederal share of the proposed DPM project (approximately 511.2 million) would be deployed in other ways to stimulate economic development within the metro center area. The economic development potentials generated by the two alternative approaches -- with and without the DPM -- would be compared in terms of quantitative measurements of cost and benefits to the city. The study of _ economic development potentials generated by the DPM investment is already underway Lmder an UMTA feasibility grant. This task will supplement that ,ongoing work and provide outputs in comparable terms so that a meaningful co�arison might be made. Under the DPM alternative, it is assumed not only that federal con- struction money and "Yotmg amendment" money (for station area development) would be available from tA�ITA to supplement state and local investments in the system, but also that other federal economic development money for which St. Paul is eligible would be available for local economic development activities. Under the non-DPM alternative evaluated in this task, the UMTA money would not be available, but the other federal economic development funds would still be available to supplement state and local funds in eligible development projects. Subtasks 7.1 Evaluation of the St. Paul Economy a. Analysis of existing structure of employment in the city and metro center and definition of economic functions. b. Evaluation of the relationship of the metro center economic ftmctions and activities to those of the city, Minneapolis and the 'I�vin Cities region. -9- � • c. : 'Anal.y.sis of past: trends in employment, economic activities, �: 4= • - �� labor force and population in St. Paul, Minneapolis and the remainder of the region. 7.2 Analysis of the prima.ry forces affecting past trends and future development opportunities in the metro center based upon the broader St. Paul economy. a. Assessment of the city�s posi�ive assets and resources (labor force, market locations, public services and infrastructure, private sector capabilities, etc.). b. Assessment of the city�s major problems and restraints (obsolescence, security, limited land area, municipal taxes and service costs, etc.). c. Assessment of the major exogenous or "outside" forces affecting the city's economy (competition, changing industrial patterns, inflation, federal policies, etc.). _ 7.3 Evaluation of inetro center's overall development prospects. a. Determination of specific types of economic activities for which the metro center has the greatest development potential in the future. b. Analysis of the necessary conditions imder which these deveYoIiment potentials might be realized. c. Projection of baseline conditions under asswnptions of: 1) current conditions persist; and 2) maximum use is made of likely future federal (other than UMTA) programs, but without stimulus of $11.6 million additional in state and local money. 7.4 Identification of specific development project opportunities in the metro center that might be stimulated by public investments for economic development, such as: a. Industrial development on unused or underused land. b. Riverfront and river-related projects. c. Housing and neighborhood revitalization d. CBD office and service fimctions -10- .�, '. e. Institutional and public developments. , : . f. Retention and expansion of e�cisting enterprises. 7.5 Formulation of public development approaches to realize feasible project potentials in the metro center. a. Analysis of the conditions that must be provided to assure project development and private investment. b. Definition of specific project "packages" with public (state and local) investment and policy requirements. c. Evaluation of the feasibility, timing and anticipated performance of all projects. d. Identify relative and, where possible, absolute leverages gained . from $11.2 million in state and local fimds when used for: a) land assembly; 2) tax abatement; 3) low intsrest loans; or 4) other incentives to be identified during the research. 7.6 Assessment of the costs and benefits of the economic development investments stimulated by state and local fimds. a. Estimates of new jobs, private investments, and tax revenuas to be directly generated. . b. Estimates of the indirect benefits (in the same quantitative terms) to be generated by the public investment activities. c. Evalua.tion of the effects of these development activities on the overall economic structure of the city and on the prospects for continued viability in the future. 7. 7 Comparative evaluation of the costs and benefits of the two alternative economic development strategies (DPM and non-DPA+n. a. Sensitivity analysis of the comparative potentials for optim� performance and results of the two approaches. � b. Quantitative comparisons over comparable time periods (jobs, investments, tax returns) . -11- i 1 c. Comparison of the potential effects of the alternative approaches ' on specific economic sectors or types of activities within the city _ (central business district, inner-city neighborh�ods. and _ .. . . . • ; coaaaercial districts, housinq for iiifferent income groups, addaptive use of existinq buildings, business retention, etc.) . RESPONSIBILITY The economic consultant will be responsible for the conduct of this task with support from the City of St. Paul. TASR S.0 - SUNIl4IARY REPORT OVERVIEW This task will examine the previous memorandum reports, select the most _ viable alternatives or portions thereof, and combine them in a coordinated manner thst w�ould produce a mechanism designed to assist in revitalizinq the St. Paul Metro Center. 5UBTASKS 8.1 Review the findinqs of Tasks 1 through 7 and select those elements �that w�ould complement one another or in fact are needed to increase the viability of the individual alternatives. 8.2 Develop a strategy that integrates these alternative elements. 8.3 Estimate costs and benefits of this strategy. 8.4 Identify the policies, financial support and schedule need�d to implement this strateqy. 8.5 Prepare interim report of recommendations. 8.6 Prepare a comparative analysis of the costs and benefits of the DPM and this alternative developmental mechanism. -12- PROGRAM BUD6ET TASK MAN-DAYS MTC City CONSULTANT 1 15 2 2 5 1 3 3 10 4 10 2 5 5 5 6 5 5 7 200 8 15 10 25 TOTAL 58 35 225 SOURCE OF MANPOWER AND FUNDS St. Paul is schedul.ed to analyze the elements contained in this program plan as part of their contribution to the DPM ESI task such that the analysis can be used for both DPM Prelim.inary Engineering and this study of alternate ways to revitalize the St. Paul Metro Area. MTC staff will contribute manpower under the Low Capital Alternatives, Project No. 203 (estimated at $11,600) . St. Paul's cash contribution for the economic consultant will be $45,000. -14- ,� . �,. � PROGRAM SCHEDULE WEEKS AFTER START 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. . 35 36 37 1.0 SHUTTLE BUS 2.0 FARE ZONE 3.0 SKYWAY 4.0 PARATRANSIT I 5.0 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 6.0 WORK HOURS -- --- ---- --- * 7.0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 8.5 INTERIM REPORT 8.7 FINAL REPORT * Task will require an elapsed tiune for five more months; however, some substantive conclusions should be available within 10 weeks. -15-