The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBoard of Commissioners – Supporting Documents Compiled – 10/10/2017AGENDA PACKET BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING September 26, 2017 2.1 Draft CB Minutes for 10.03.2017 2.2 County Warrants~Bills 2.4 Tobacco Licenses 3.0 Phase II Highway Safety Plan 6.0 2016 VA Federal and State Expenditures 6.0 MDVA Operational Grant 9.0 Auditor-Treasurer Agenda Items MINUTES OF THE OTTER TAIL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Government Services Center, Commissioners’ Room 515 W. Fir Avenue, Fergus Falls, MN October 3, 2017 9:30 a.m. Call to Order The Otter Tail County Board of Commissioners convened at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at the Government Services Center in Fergus Falls, MN, with Commissioners Doug Huebsch, Chair; Wayne Johnson, Vice-Chair; Roger Froemming, John Lindquist and Lee Rogness present. Approval of Agenda Chairman Huebsch called for approval of the Board Agenda. Motion by Rogness, second by Lindquist and unanimously carried to approve the Board of Commissioners Agenda of October 3, 2017, with the following additions: Central Minnesota Radio Board Discussion Buffalo-Red River Watershed District Road Tour Consent Agenda Motion by Froemming, second by Lindquist and unanimously carried to approve Consent Agenda items as follows: 1. September 26, 2017 Board of Commissioners’ Meeting Minutes 2. Warrants/Bills for October 3, 2017 (Exhibit A) 2018 Benefit Enrollment & Funding HR Director Nicole Hansen presented a proposed benefit funding structure moving from a compensation employer contribution to providing a defined benefit employer contribution. The Insurance Committee has been working with the Gallagher Consulting agency and identified goals throughout the process including; 1) valuing tenured employees while making family health insurance coverage more equitable, 2) providing a sustainable employer contribution funding solution, 3) keeping the health insurance cost-neutral, 4) maintain/improve the County’s ability to recruit and retain employees, and 5) consider employee morale issues. Discussion followed. Motion by Rogness, second by Lindquist and unanimously carried to approve the defined benefits plan for non-union employees beginning January 1, 2018, as presented. The supporting document can be located on the County website at http://www.co.ottertail.mn.us/AgendaCenter, within the Oct. 3, 2017, Agenda Packet. Contract for Legal Services Administrator John Dinsmore and County Attorney David Hauser submitted a Contract for Legal Services for Children In Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS), Permanency, and Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) cases. Discussion followed. Motion by Johnson, second by Froemming and unanimously carried to authorize the appropriate County Officials signatures to execute an updated Contract for Legal Services for CHIPS, Permanency, and TPR court cases. The term of the Contract is from July 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, at a rate of $3,000 per month. Highway Projects Proposal for Mix Designs CSAH 35 & 67: Motion by Rogness, second by Johnson and unanimously carried to authorize the appropriate County Officials signatures to execute an Agreement (proposal QTB065887) between the County of Otter Tail and Braun Intertec Corporation for geotechnical and pavement evaluations for CSAH 35 and CSAH 67 projects. OTC Board of Commissioners’ Minutes October 3, 2017 Page 2 Proposal for CSAH 27 & CSAH 88: Motion by Johnson, second by Rogness and unanimously carried to authorize the appropriate County Officials signatures to execute an Agreement for additional geotechnical evaluations for the CSAH 27 and CSAH 88 projects. Proposal for 2018-2020 Transportation Plan: Motion by Rogness, second by Johnson and unanimously carried to authorize the appropriate County Officials signatures to execute an Agreement between the County of Otter Tail and SRF Consulting Group, Inc. for Professional Services for the 2018-2020 Transportation Plan Implementation and Pavement Consulting Services, as submitted by the Public Works Director. Proposal for Strategic Long Range Planning: Public Works Director Rick West discussed a proposal for long range planning from SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Discussion took place regarding changes in the contract that would facilitate the scope of long range planning in Otter Tail County to align with priorities identified by the public. Motion by Johnson, second by Rogness and unanimously carried to request that SRF Consulting Group revise the Agreement (SRF 11025.PP) for Professional Services for Otter Tail County Strategic Long-Range Planning. Final Plats Common Interest Community (CIC) Number 81: Motion by Lindquist, second by Froemming and unanimously carried to approve CIC Number 81 resort conversion owned by Steve and Debra Heidenson known as Battle View Resort located in Section 33 of Girard Township, West Battle Lake (56-239). Common Interest Community (CIC) No. 78: Motion by Lindquist, second by Froemming and unanimously carried to approve CIC No. 78 resort conversion owned by Kathy Thompson known as 3 Lakes Resort located in Section 6 of Everts Township, Deer Lake (56-298). Snowmobile Agreement Motion by Johnson, second by Froemming and unanimously carried to authorize the appropriate County Officials signatures to execute an Agreement between the County of Otter Tail and MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for pass-through funding for the snowmobile grant-in-aid program which provides FY2018 trail maintenance and grooming. Radio Board and Watershed District Update Commissioner Lindquist updated the Board on concerns about ongoing emergency related expenses for radios and other technology for the small fire departments and rescue squads throughout the County. He briefed the Board on the recent Buffalo-Red River Watershed District road tour. Annual Probation Tour Motion by Froemming, second by Lindquist and unanimously carried to authorize Commissioners to attend the Probation Tour Monday, October 30, 2017. Emergency Preparedness Motion by Lindquist, second by Johnson and unanimously carried to close the Government Services Center (GSC) in Fergus Falls, MN, on Friday, October 13, 2017, from 12:30 – 4:00 p.m. for emergency procedures training exercises. Emergency Manager Patrick Waletzko will be speaking at the East Otter Tail County Township fall meeting on Tuesday, October 24, 2017, at the Deer Creek Community Center. OTC Board of Commissioners’ Minutes October 3, 2017 Page 3 Adjournment At 10:45 a.m., Chairman Huebsch declared the meeting of the Otter Tail County Board of Commissioners adjourned until 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, October 10, 2017. OTTER TAIL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Dated: By: Attest: Doug Huebsch, Chair John Dinsmore, Clerk OTC Board of Commissioners’ Minutes October 3, 2017 Exhibit A, Page 1 WARRANTS FOR 10/03/2017 OTC Board of Commissioners’ Minutes October 3, 2017 Exhibit A, Page 2 OTC Board of Commissioners’ Minutes October 3, 2017 Exhibit A, Page 3 csteinba COMMISSIONER'S VOUCHERS ENTRIES Paid on Behalf Of Name Explode Dist. Formulas?: 10/5/17 Otter Tail County Auditor Audit List for Board Page 1 Print List in Order By: Save Report Options?: Type of Audit List: on Audit List?: N Y D 4 N D - Detailed Audit List S - Condensed Audit List 1 - Fund (Page Break by Fund) 2 - Department (Totals by Dept) 3 - Vendor Number 4 - Vendor Name 11:38AM csteinba COMMISSIONER'S VOUCHERS ENTRIESGeneral Revenue Fund Account/Formula Copyright 2010-2017 Integrated Financial Systems 11:38AM10/5/17 1,190.75 374.36 3,763.83 795.00 184.98 135.00 108.13 1,190.75 374.36 2,600.00 1,163.83 795.00 184.98 135.00 108.13 36.98 129.90 11.96 377.40 328.27 33.92 Page 2Audit List for Board Account/Formula Description Rpt Invoice #Warrant DescriptionVendorName Paid On Bhf #Accr Amount On Behalf of NameNo.Service Dates 11409 ABRA MN FERGUS FALLS 01-149-000-0000-6354 UNIT #15607 GIS REPAIRS 9758 Insurance Claims 1 Transactions11409 11385 ALLSTREAM 14-214-000-0000-6689 ACCT 877418 MONTHLY SERVICE 14909312 Prior Year Accumulations-911 1 Transactions11385 13309 AMUNDSON PETERSON INC 10-304-000-0000-6343 EQUIPMENT RENTAL Equipment Rental 10-304-000-0000-6572 PARTS Repair And Maintenance Supplies 2 Transactions13309 10655 AP TECHNOLOGY 01-043-000-0000-6342 ACCT CI1200293 SECURECHECK MNT IN016549 Service Agreements 1 Transactions10655 3474 ARNDT/JEFFREY 10-304-000-0000-6526 SHOES Uniforms 1 Transactions3474 5721 ASSOCIATION OF MN COUNTIES 01-002-001-0000-6400 CONTINOUS IMPROVEMENT WORKSHOP 10/10/17 Lean Facilitator Expense POTTER/LELAND14363 1 Transactions5721 11472 AUTO FIX 10-304-000-0000-6306 SERVICE Repair/Maint. Equip 1 Transactions11472 102 AUTO VALUE FERGUS FALLS 01-201-000-0000-6491 ACCT 507600 SUPPLIES 5184351 General Supplies 10-304-000-0000-6406 SUPPLIES & PARTS Office Supplies 10-304-000-0000-6406 SUPPLIES Office Supplies 10-304-000-0000-6565 SUPPLIES Fuels - Diesel 10-304-000-0000-6572 SUPPLIES & PARTS Repair And Maintenance Supplies 10-304-000-0000-6572 PARTS Repair And Maintenance Supplies Otter Tail County Auditor ABRA MN FERGUS FALLS ALLSTREAM AMUNDSON PETERSON INC AP TECHNOLOGY ARNDT/JEFFREY ASSOCIATION OF MN COUNTIES AUTO FIX csteinba COMMISSIONER'S VOUCHERS ENTRIESRoad And Bridge Fund Account/Formula Copyright 2010-2017 Integrated Financial Systems 11:38AM10/5/17 918.43 94.04 60.00 6,103.02 1,529.47 398.25 15,112.00 27.75 6,890.00 94.04 60.00 6,103.02 90.42 1,439.05 398.25 15,112.00 27.75 6,890.00 12,093.15 Page 3Audit List for Board Account/Formula Description Rpt Invoice #Warrant DescriptionVendorName Paid On Bhf #Accr Amount On Behalf of NameNo.Service Dates 6 Transactions102 14163 BATTERY JUNCTION 01-201-000-0000-6491 ACCT 551334 BATTERIES 1112598 General Supplies 1 Transactions14163 7051 BELTRAMI COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 01-091-000-0000-6369 56-CR-10-313 SUBPEONA 5123 Miscellaneous Charges 1 Transactions7051 31803 BEYER BODY SHOP INC 01-149-000-0000-6354 UNIT #1609 SHERIFF REPAIRS 53D984A3 Insurance Claims 1 Transactions31803 13535 BHH PARTNERS 17-250-000-0000-6671 PROJECT 41573.1 9/12/17 Buildings - Capital Improvements 17-250-000-0000-6671 PROJECT 41573.0 9/12/17 Buildings - Capital Improvements 2 Transactions13535 262 BOB BARKER COMPANY INC 01-250-000-0000-6493 ACCT OTTMN0 LAUNDRY BAGS UT1000432051 Laundry Supplies 1 Transactions262 386 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 10-303-000-0000-6278 SERVICE Engineering & Hydrological Testing 1 Transactions386 3957 BRAUN VENDING INC 10-304-000-0000-6252 DRINKING WATER Water And Sewage 1 Transactions3957 9528 BRIAN M RIPLEY EXCAVATING 10-302-000-0000-6350 SERVICE Maintenance Contractor 1 Transactions9528 1227 CARR'S TREE SERVICE 10-302-000-0000-6350 SERVICE Maintenance Contractor Otter Tail County Auditor AUTO VALUE FERGUS FALLS BATTERY JUNCTION BELTRAMI COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE BEYER BODY SHOP INC BHH PARTNERS BOB BARKER COMPANY INC BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION BRAUN VENDING INC BRIAN M RIPLEY EXCAVATING csteinba COMMISSIONER'S VOUCHERS ENTRIESRoad And Bridge Fund Account/Formula Copyright 2010-2017 Integrated Financial Systems 11:38AM10/5/17 12,093.15 93.64 517.00 6,129.24 4,916.91 4,855.93 30.00 78.64 15.00 517.00 566.00 97.85 2,767.19 2,698.20 78.78 297.00 52.76 10.41 695.20 3,750.77 10.57 21.42 4,855.93 30.00 Page 4Audit List for Board Account/Formula Description Rpt Invoice #Warrant DescriptionVendorName Paid On Bhf #Accr Amount On Behalf of NameNo.Service Dates 1 Transactions1227 8930 CERTIFIED AUTO REPAIR 10-304-000-0000-6306 SERVICE Repair/Maint. Equip 10-304-000-0000-6572 SERVICE Repair And Maintenance Supplies 2 Transactions8930 12785 CERTIFIED LABORATORIES 10-304-000-0000-6572 SUPPLIES Repair And Maintenance Supplies 1 Transactions12785 9087 CODE 4 SERVICES LLC 01-201-000-0000-6315 UNIT 1302 INSTALL PARTITION 3610 Radio Repair Charges 01-201-000-0000-6304 UNIT 1402 HEAD LIGHT FLASHER 3611 Repair And Maintenance 14-201-000-0000-6687 UNIT 1704 INITIAL PATROL UPFIT 3612 Equipment-Current Year 14-201-000-0000-6687 UNIT 1701 INITIAL PATROL UPFIT 3613 Equipment-Current Year 4 Transactions9087 32603 COOPERS TECHNOLOGY GROUP 01-031-000-0000-6406 ACCT 2189988076 LABELS/CLIPS 421816 Office Supplies 01-043-000-0000-6369 ACCT 2189988295 KEYBOARD TRAYS 421704 Miscellaneous Charges 01-061-000-0000-6406 ACCT 2189988122 SUPPLIES 04435 Office Supplies 01-061-000-0000-6406 ACCT 2189988122 CALENDAR 04451 Office Supplies 01-091-000-0000-6677 ACCT 2189988402 PANEL SYSTEM 421371 Office Furniture And Equipment-Minor 01-091-000-0000-6677 ACCT 2189988402 PANEL SYSTEM 421421 Office Furniture And Equipment-Minor 01-127-000-0000-6406 ACCT 2189988310 DVD SPINDLE 421555 Office Supplies 01-601-000-0000-6406 ACCT 2189988760 SUPPLIES 421887 Office Supplies 8 Transactions32603 7834 CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES 10-302-000-0000-6513 HERBICIDES Herbicides 1 Transactions7834 3710 CULLIGAN WATER CONDITIONING 10-304-000-0000-6252 DRINKING WATER Water And Sewage 1 Transactions3710 Otter Tail County Auditor CARR'S TREE SERVICE CERTIFIED AUTO REPAIR CERTIFIED LABORATORIES CODE 4 SERVICES LLC COOPERS TECHNOLOGY GROUP CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES CULLIGAN WATER CONDITIONING csteinba COMMISSIONER'S VOUCHERS ENTRIESGeneral Revenue Fund Account/Formula Copyright 2010-2017 Integrated Financial Systems 11:38AM10/5/17 293.76 350.00 196.51 273.60 240.75 865.98 164.00 7.25 179.52 114.24 350.00 54.08 47.70 48.40 46.33 273.60 240.75 865.98 164.00 7.25 Page 5Audit List for Board Account/Formula Description Rpt Invoice #Warrant DescriptionVendorName Paid On Bhf #Accr Amount On Behalf of NameNo.Service Dates 35011 DAILY JOURNAL 01-123-000-0000-6240 ACCT 3648 BOA OCT 12 MTG SEP2017 Publishing & Advertising 01-124-000-0000-6240 ACCT 3666 PC MTG OCT 11 SEP2017 Publishing & Advertising 2 Transactions35011 6627 DALTON COMMUNITY FIRE AND RESCUE 10-302-000-0000-6350 SERVICE Maintenance Contractor 1 Transactions6627 1496 DAN'S TOWING & REPAIR 01-201-000-0000-6304 OIL CHANGE/SERVICE/TIRE REPAIR 40623 Repair And Maintenance 01-201-000-0000-6304 UNIT 1205 OIL CHANGE & SERVICE 41087 Repair And Maintenance 01-201-000-0000-6304 OIL CHANGE & SERVICE 41103 Repair And Maintenance 01-201-000-0000-6304 UNIT 1602 OIL CHANGE & SERVICE 41137 Repair And Maintenance 4 Transactions1496 13214 DASH MEDICAL GLOVES INC 01-201-000-0000-6491 EXAM GLOVES 1074867 General Supplies 1 Transactions13214 1989 ELDIEN/MICHELLE M 01-091-000-0000-6330 MILEAGE - TRAINING SEP2017 Mileage 1 Transactions1989 2997 FASTENAL COMPANY 10-304-000-0000-6406 SUPPLIES Office Supplies 1 Transactions2997 6004 FERGUS FALLS UTILITIES 10-303-000-0000-6369 LANDFILL SWMT Miscellaneous Charges 1 Transactions6004 12842 FREITAG/MICHAEL 10-302-000-0000-6331 MEALS Meals And Lodging 1 Transactions12842 3628 FRONTIER PRECISION INC Otter Tail County Auditor DAILY JOURNAL DALTON COMMUNITY FIRE AND RESCUE DAN'S TOWING & REPAIR DASH MEDICAL GLOVES INC ELDIEN/MICHELLE M FASTENAL COMPANY FERGUS FALLS UTILITIES FREITAG/MICHAEL csteinba COMMISSIONER'S VOUCHERS ENTRIESGeneral Revenue Fund Account/Formula Copyright 2010-2017 Integrated Financial Systems 11:38AM10/5/17 1,584.27 202.08 1,025.30 20.23 118.77 164.47 350.00 6.99 592.63 991.64 202.08 641.70 213.90 169.70 20.23 118.77 164.47 350.00 6.99 89.35 Page 6Audit List for Board Account/Formula Description Rpt Invoice #Warrant DescriptionVendorName Paid On Bhf #Accr Amount On Behalf of NameNo.Service Dates 01-149-000-0000-6354 ACCT M305540 SECO BRACKET 164685 Insurance Claims 10-303-000-0000-6686 WARRANTY Computer Software 2 Transactions3628 52564 GRAINGER INC 01-112-106-0000-6572 ACCT 813640729 FILTERS/FUSES 9563844472 Repair And Maint Supplies 1 Transactions52564 13522 GREATAMERICA FINANCIAL SVCS 01-041-000-0000-6342 11/20 & 12/20 STANDARD PAYMENT 21350232 Service Agreements 01-042-000-0000-6342 11/20 & 12/20 STANDARD PAYMENT 21350232 Service Agreements 01-043-000-0000-6342 11/20 & 12/20 STANDARD PAYMENT 21350232 Service Agreements 3 Transactions13522 11712 HARTHUN/TRENT 10-302-000-0000-6331 MEALS Meals And Lodging 1 Transactions11712 1659 HAUSER/DAVID 01-091-000-0000-6330 MILEAGE - MCAPS MEETING 9/28/17 Mileage 1 Transactions1659 983 HENNING AUTO PARTS INC 10-304-000-0000-6572 PARTS Repair And Maintenance Supplies 1 Transactions983 6643 HESS EXCAVATING 22-622-000-0618-6369 CLEAN DITCH W/ EXCAVATOR 198 Miscellaneous Charges 1 Transactions6643 2001 HILLTOP LUMBER INC 10-304-000-0000-6572 SUPPLIES Repair And Maintenance Supplies 1 Transactions2001 37198 HOLO/SANDY 01-091-000-0000-6271 MILEAGE - SURVEILANCE SEP2017 Fraud Investigator Expenses Otter Tail County Auditor FRONTIER PRECISION INC GRAINGER INC GREATAMERICA FINANCIAL SVCS HARTHUN/TRENT HAUSER/DAVID HENNING AUTO PARTS INC HESS EXCAVATING HILLTOP LUMBER INC csteinba COMMISSIONER'S VOUCHERS ENTRIESGeneral Revenue Fund Account/Formula Copyright 2010-2017 Integrated Financial Systems 11:38AM10/5/17 89.35 575.89 398.74 368.93 4,127.96 250.36 18.85 9,000.00 170.76 575.89 398.74 368.93 4,127.96 250.36 18.85 9,000.00 170.76 850.00 Page 7Audit List for Board Account/Formula Description Rpt Invoice #Warrant DescriptionVendorName Paid On Bhf #Accr Amount On Behalf of NameNo.Service Dates 1 Transactions37198 38100 INNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS 01-091-000-0000-6406 ACCT 2271 SUPPLIES 034804 Office Supplies 1 Transactions38100 1002 KIMBALL MIDWEST 10-304-000-0000-6572 PARTS Repair And Maintenance Supplies 1 Transactions1002 8279 KRUPICH/JEREMIAS 01-201-000-0000-6171 LODGING - ICP INST. TRAINING 10/10/17 Tuition And Education Expenses 1 Transactions8279 6432 L & O ACRES TRANSPORT INC 10-302-000-0000-6514 SALT Salt 1 Transactions6432 1020 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC 10-304-000-0000-6572 PARTS Repair And Maintenance Supplies 1 Transactions1020 8410 LEITCH/JULIE 01-201-000-0000-6396 MAILING CASE FILE 9/29/17 Special Investigation 1 Transactions8410 14149 LM ROAD SERVICES LLC 10-302-000-0000-6350 SPRAYING Maintenance Contractor 1 Transactions14149 41638 LOCATORS & SUPPLIES INC 01-044-000-0000-6406 ACCT 23-52N4 MEASURING WHEEL 0260295-IN Office Supplies 1 Transactions41638 12253 MAGNUM ELECTRIC 01-112-101-0000-6572 FIX ANNUNCIATOR/BATTERY 67210 Repair And Maintenance Supplies Otter Tail County Auditor HOLO/SANDY INNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS KIMBALL MIDWEST KRUPICH/JEREMIAS L & O ACRES TRANSPORT INC LAWSON PRODUCTS INC LEITCH/JULIE LM ROAD SERVICES LLC LOCATORS & SUPPLIES INC csteinba COMMISSIONER'S VOUCHERS ENTRIESGeneral Revenue Fund Account/Formula Copyright 2010-2017 Integrated Financial Systems 11:38AM10/5/17 850.00 360.22 877.29 250.59 343.00 50.00 6,008.00 200.24 159.98 167.99 335.00 374.30 42.55 35.93 33.08 32.55 106.48 343.00 50.00 6,008.00 37,512.50 Page 8Audit List for Board Account/Formula Description Rpt Invoice #Warrant DescriptionVendorName Paid On Bhf #Accr Amount On Behalf of NameNo.Service Dates 1 Transactions12253 36132 MARCO INC ST LOUIS 01-101-000-0000-6342 ACCT 35700038 CN 500-0438518 340390426 Service Agreements 01-122-000-0000-6342 ACCT 35700038 CN 500-0491119 340144625 Service Agreements 2 Transactions36132 2721 MARCO TECHNOLOGIES LLC 01-091-000-0000-6342 ACCT OT00 4624240 Service Agreements 01-250-000-0000-6677 ACCT OT08 PRINTER 4573707 Office Furniture And Equipment-Minor 10-301-000-0000-6342 SERVICE AGREEMENT Service Agreements 3 Transactions2721 42863 MINNESOTA MOTOR COMPANY 01-044-000-0000-6304 ACCT 2607 OIL CHANGE/CAR WASH 666370 Repair And Maintenance 01-201-000-0000-6304 ACCT 2900 OIL CHANGE 664922 Repair And Maintenance 01-201-000-0000-6304 ACCT 2900 OIL CHANGE 665807 Repair And Maintenance 01-201-000-0000-6304 ACCT 2900 OIL CHANGE 666165 Repair And Maintenance 10-304-000-0000-6306 SERVICE Repair/Maint. Equip 5 Transactions42863 546 MN CO INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRUST 01-149-000-0000-6354 ADD CONT EQP 427-430 765108 Insurance Claims 1 Transactions546 14818 MN HEARTLAND TOURISM ASSOC 01-705-000-0000-6242 ANNUAL MEETING REGISTRATION 10/10/17 Registration Fees LEONARD/NICHOLAS13641 1 Transactions14818 565 MN STATE AUDITOR 10-301-000-0000-6266 AUDIT Audit Cost 1 Transactions565 6012 MOORE ENGINEERING INC 10-303-000-0000-6278 SERVICE Engineering & Hydrological Testing Otter Tail County Auditor MAGNUM ELECTRIC MARCO INC ST LOUIS MARCO TECHNOLOGIES LLC MINNESOTA MOTOR COMPANY MN CO INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRUST MN HEARTLAND TOURISM ASSOC MN STATE AUDITOR csteinba COMMISSIONER'S VOUCHERS ENTRIESRoad And Bridge Fund Account/Formula Copyright 2010-2017 Integrated Financial Systems 11:38AM10/5/17 37,512.50 4,040.00 1,146.00 29.98 280.00 874.50 381.15 13.48 36.00 4,040.00 1,146.00 29.98 280.00 874.50 381.15 13.48 36.00 197.08 254.91 Page 9Audit List for Board Account/Formula Description Rpt Invoice #Warrant DescriptionVendorName Paid On Bhf #Accr Amount On Behalf of NameNo.Service Dates 1 Transactions6012 6260 MOTOROLA 14-214-000-0000-6689 ACCT 1000631219 0001 LAPTOP 13179902 Prior Year Accumulations-911 1 Transactions6260 3427 NACO 01-002-000-0000-6241 ID 27111 MEMBERSHIP DUES 200520 Membership Dues 1 Transactions3427 8373 NAPA FERGUS FALLS 01-112-101-0000-6572 ACCT 13040 FHP BELTS 694491 Repair And Maintenance Supplies 1 Transactions8373 11384 NEWMAN PAINTING INC 01-112-102-0000-6572 PAINT JAIL ROOM NEAR BUNK AREA 4130 Repair And Maintenance Supplies 1 Transactions11384 6006 NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC 10-304-000-0000-6572 PARTS Repair And Maintenance Supplies 1 Transactions6006 14257 NORTHLAND FIRE PROTECTION 01-112-109-0000-6342 CLNOTTOP SERVICE SYSTEM 28591 Service Agreements 1 Transactions14257 3143 OLSON/KIRSTEN 01-061-000-0000-6330 MILEAGE SEPTEMBER 2017 SEP2017 Mileage 1 Transactions3143 7117 OMNI LEADERSHIP EXCHANGE, LLC 01-031-000-0000-6369 MAINT WORKER -STANDARD VIEW 1080 Miscellaneous Charges 1 Transactions7117 1412 PHILLIPE LAW OFFICE 01-013-000-0000-6262 56-PR-17-2320 G POST 10/2/17 Public Defender 01-013-000-0000-6262 56-PR-17-2325 G GETZ 9/28/17 Public Defender Otter Tail County Auditor MOORE ENGINEERING INC MOTOROLA NACO NAPA FERGUS FALLS NEWMAN PAINTING INC NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC NORTHLAND FIRE PROTECTION OLSON/KIRSTEN OMNI LEADERSHIP EXCHANGE, LLC csteinba COMMISSIONER'S VOUCHERS ENTRIESGeneral Revenue Fund Account/Formula Copyright 2010-2017 Integrated Financial Systems 11:38AM10/5/17 451.99 1,285.23 45.00 4,800.00 880.00 6,763.24 490.20 79.98 244.08 1,285.23 45.00 4,800.00 880.00 6,763.24 490.20 79.98 10.00 234.08 27.65 Page 10Audit List for Board Account/Formula Description Rpt Invoice #Warrant DescriptionVendorName Paid On Bhf #Accr Amount On Behalf of NameNo.Service Dates 2 Transactions1412 7900 PITNEY BOWES 01-149-000-0000-6210 ACCT 0017188038 3101646410 Postage & Postage Meter 1 Transactions7900 14124 POLK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 01-091-000-0000-6369 56-CR-10-313 SERVICE FEE 17-001082 Miscellaneous Charges 1 Transactions14124 8842 POWERPLAN OIB 10-302-000-0000-6343 EQUIPMENT RENTAL Equipment Rental 1 Transactions8842 12526 PRECISE MRM LLC 01-149-000-0000-6369 ACCT 679827 5MB DATA PLAN IN200-1014245 Miscellaneous Charges 1 Transactions12526 12260 RAMSEY FLOORING 01-112-108-0000-6673 CARPET CONFERENCE ROOMS J1013 Remodeling Projects 1 Transactions12260 9547 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MN 01-601-000-0000-6292 ACCT 5007218 STEVENS SEP 2017 0300018959 4 H Summer Assistance 1 Transactions9547 1819 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIP CO INC 10-304-000-0000-6572 PARTS Repair And Maintenance Supplies 1 Transactions1819 10866 SCHEIDECKER/KEVIN 01-044-000-0000-6331 MEAL - INCOME CASE STUDY 10/10/17 Meals And Lodging 01-044-000-0000-6331 LODGING - INCOME CASE STUDY 10/10/17 Meals And Lodging 2 Transactions10866 19005 SERVICE FOOD SUPER VALU 01-002-000-0000-6369 K3210 3OCT17 Miscellaneous Charges Otter Tail County Auditor PHILLIPE LAW OFFICE PITNEY BOWES POLK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE POWERPLAN OIB PRECISE MRM LLC RAMSEY FLOORING REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MN RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIP CO INC SCHEIDECKER/KEVIN csteinba COMMISSIONER'S VOUCHERS ENTRIESGeneral Revenue Fund Account/Formula Copyright 2010-2017 Integrated Financial Systems 11:38AM10/5/17 27.65 14.97 6,282.00 275.00 400.00 96.40 246.00 18,360.14 319.93 14.97 6,282.00 275.00 400.00 96.40 246.00 1,573.20 12,388.00 4,398.94 319.93 Page 11Audit List for Board Account/Formula Description Rpt Invoice #Warrant DescriptionVendorName Paid On Bhf #Accr Amount On Behalf of NameNo.Service Dates 1 Transactions19005 159 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 01-112-000-0000-6572 ACCT 9141-3 TAPE 2641-6 Repair And Maintenance Supplies 1 Transactions159 1630 SIMPLEXGRINNELL 01-112-000-0000-6687 ACCT 385-601634301 41089477 Equipment- Current Year 1 Transactions1630 8741 T & K TIRES 10-304-000-0000-6572 SERVICE Repair And Maintenance Supplies 1 Transactions8741 6176 THORSON/JOHN 10-302-000-0000-6350 SERVICE Maintenance Contractor 1 Transactions6176 49008 TIRES PLUS TOTAL CAR CARE 01-201-000-0000-6304 UNIT 1504 INSTALL TIRES 104409 Repair And Maintenance 1 Transactions49008 9302 TRI-STATE DIVING 01-201-000-0000-6395 WRIST & NECK SEALS 5447 Dive Team 1 Transactions9302 1841 TRUENORTH STEEL 10-302-000-0000-6512 BANDS Culverts 10-302-000-0000-6512 CULVERTS Culverts 10-302-000-0000-6512 APRONS Culverts 3 Transactions1841 5022 ULSCHMID/SUSAN 01-091-000-0000-6330 MILEAGE - MCAPS MEETINGS SEP2017 Mileage 1 Transactions5022 11064 US AUTOFORCE Otter Tail County Auditor SERVICE FOOD SUPER VALU SHERWIN WILLIAMS SIMPLEXGRINNELL T & K TIRES THORSON/JOHN TIRES PLUS TOTAL CAR CARE TRI-STATE DIVING TRUENORTH STEEL ULSCHMID/SUSAN csteinba COMMISSIONER'S VOUCHERS ENTRIESGeneral Revenue Fund Account/Formula Copyright 2010-2017 Integrated Financial Systems 11:38AM10/5/17 570.20 778.72 395.95 183,045.07 570.20 117.27 661.45 395.95 Page 12Audit List for Board Account/Formula Description Rpt Invoice #Warrant DescriptionVendorName Paid On Bhf #Accr Amount On Behalf of NameNo.Service Dates 01-201-000-0000-6304 ACCT 568303 TIRES 6335105 Repair And Maintenance 1 Transactions11064 51002 VICTOR LUNDEEN COMPANY 01-122-000-0000-6406 ACCT 7490 SUPPLIES 1063485 Office Supplies 01-122-000-0000-6406 ACCT 7490 SEWER PERMIT APPS 425851 Office Supplies 2 Transactions51002 9357 WAYNE'S TOOLWAGON 10-304-000-0000-6572 SUPPLIES Repair And Maintenance Supplies 1 Transactions9357 Final Total ............85 Vendors 122 Transactions Otter Tail County Auditor US AUTOFORCE VICTOR LUNDEEN COMPANY WAYNE'S TOOLWAGON csteinba COMMISSIONER'S VOUCHERS ENTRIESRoad And Bridge Fund Copyright 2010-2017 Integrated Financial Systems 11:38AM10/5/17 Page 13Audit List for Board Otter Tail County Auditor AMOUNT 41,193.52 1 130,092.33 10 9,879.75 14 1,529.47 17 350.00 22 183,045.07 NameFundRecap by Fund General Revenue Fund Road And Bridge Fund Capital Improvement Fund Construction Fund County Ditch Fund All Funds Total Approved by,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page | 1 Consent Agenda Items Tuesday, October 10, 2017 Approve the issuance of a 2018 tobacco license to the following businesses: 1. Lakes Area Cooperative dba Battle Lake Cenex 2. Lakes Area Cooperative dba Dent Oasis 3. Lakes Area Cooperative dba Ottertail Oasis 4. Lakes Area Cooperative dba Perham Oasis 5. Judd Palubicki, dba Wagon Wheel One- Stop BOARD AGENDA CH2M, INC. 1 Otter Tail County Board Presentation DATE: Tuesday, October 10th, 2017 MEETING TIME: 9:35 AM – 11:00 AM Board Member Presentation LOCATION: County Board Meeting Otter Tail County Government Services Center 520 West Fir Avenue, Fergus Falls, MN Agenda 9:35 Introductions & Presentation Goals  Create a shared understanding of the County Road Safety Plan update process and its importance.  Develop a more comprehensive understanding of featured infrastructure safety strategies to reduce severe crashes in Otter Tail County. Rick West Public Works Division Director 9:40 County Roadway Safety Plan (CRSP) Overview  Overview of CRSP MnDOT  Overview of Proactive Systemic Safety Approach  Summary of Otter Tail County Crash Data & Focus Areas Howard Preston, CH2M 10:10 Infrastructure Safety Strategies “Big Book of Ideas” and Discussion of Key Strategies 10:55 CRSP Update Next Steps CH2M 11:00 Adjourn 10/5/20171Otter Tail County County Roadway Safety PlanBoard Meeting October 10, 2017Handouts Review• Agenda• PPT Slides• County Rural Crash Tree• Big book of ideas• CRSP one-pager• Research/Strategy one-pagers• TZD One-pager• Data Driven Safety Analysis (DDSA) One-pager (FHWA)2 10/5/20172What is a County Roadway Safety Plan or “CRSP”?• CRSP Identifies priority safety concerns and suggested infrastructure improvements. oLocation-specific safety concernsoPrioritized list of suggested safety improvements• In 2014, initial plan for all 87 Minnesota counties in partnership with MnDOT and the Federal Highway Administration. • The “CRSP Update” is an effort to review and update the initial CRSPsto advance safety on county roadways.3Why the need for County Roadway Safety Plans?• 60% of severe crashes (fatality or serious injury) occur on local roadways; most severe are on county roads. • Local agencies are responsible for more than 90% of the state’s roadway miles.• The majority of roadway safety investments have been made on the state system.4“It will be impossible to achieve Minnesota’s long-term goal of zero fatalities if minimal investment is made to address safety on local roadways” Mitch Rasmussen, Assistant Commissioner State Aid Division 10/5/20173What is the goal of County Road Safety Plans? To support the statewide initiative of moving Minnesota Toward Zero Deaths or Minnesota TZD through continued reduction of fatal and serious injury crashes on county roadways. 5• Aligns with the Minnesota Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)• Supports the statewide goal of fewer than 300 fatalities and fewer than 850 serious injuries by 2020. What are the initial results of county road safety improvements?The implementation of nearly $60 million of road safety improvements from 2012 to 2014. During this time, Minnesota’s county system *fatality rate decreased 25%6 10/5/20174CRSP Update - Phase 1 (15 Counties)7DDSA Minnesota Case Study Video8 10/5/20175Overview of Proactive Systemic Safety ApproachWhy Proactive Systemic Safety Approach(or Systemic Risk Analysis)?• Traditional method for conducting a safety analysis: “high crash” locations• This method was a barrier to local system participation in statewide safety programs: no locations met the high crash designationThe solution for local system safety analyses =Systemic Risk Analysis10 10/5/20176What is a Systemic Risk Analysis?•Analytical approachidentifies and prioritizes safety deficiencies on roads based on risk of crash (vs. density of crashes).•Identifies risk factorsbased on roadway and traffic characteristics common to locations with fatal and injury crash histories.•Prioritizes the road system for safety investment by documenting the number of risk factors present at each location. The greater the number of risk factors present at any location, the greater the risk and the higher the priority as a candidate for safety investment.11What is the benefit of a systemic process?•It works – it is approved by FHWA as a data-driven process to identify safety improvement projects, including those considered eligible for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding.•It leads to implementation– the process has identified more than $300M of low-cost safety improvement projects along local systems in Minnesota.• MnDOT has directed >$60M of HSIP funds to support implementation along local systems.•It allows agencies to proactively deploy safety projects on at-risk locations. With the systemic process, the answer to “How many people have to die before you do something?”– is Zero!12 10/5/20177Risk Factor Identification13Segments:• Density of Road Departure• Traffic Volume• Critical Curve Radius• Access Density• Edge Risk AssessmentRisk Factor Identification14Curves:• ADT Range• Radius Range• Severe Crash on Curve• Intersection on Curve• Visual Trap on Curve 10/5/20178Risk Factor Identification15Intersections• Skewed Approach• On/near curve• Volume• Proximity to railroad crossing• Proximity to last STOP sign• Intersection related crashes• Commercial Development in QuadrantSystemic Safety Approach Works!160.020.020.040.050.100.160.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.18 Crash Density (Severe Lane Departure Crashes Per Mile Per Year)Number of Risk FactorsHigher priority segments have higher crash densitiesLow PriorityHigh Priority1234510 10/5/20179Overview of the Local Safety Planning & Systemic Process17Otter Tail County Crash Data Overview and Safety Focus Areas 10/5/201710Otter Tail County Crash Tree10/5/201719Otter Tail County Crash Tree10/5/201720 10/5/201711County Versus State Crash Data - Rural 21Otter Tail County Crash Tree– Key Takeaways• A primary focus on the County’s rural roadways.• A secondary focus on the County’s urban roadways.• A primary focus on lane departure crashes along rural road segments (including curves).• A secondary focus on Right Angle collisions at rural Thru/STOP controlled intersections.• The focus on Lane Departure and Right Angle collisions is the first step in developing and prioritizing a short list of potential safety countermeasures.10/5/201722 10/5/201712Otter Tail CountyInfrastructure Safety Strategies Big Book of Ideas24 10/5/201713Shoulder Paving (2’, 4’, 6’)Crash Reduction Factor• 20% to 30% run-off-the-road crashes (with shoulder rumble) (2’ only)Typical Installation Costs• $54,000 per mile + $5,850 per mile (for Edge Rumble)10/5/201725Streetlights (and Approaches)Crash Reduction Factor• 25% to 40% of nighttime crashesTypical Installation Costs• $6,000 per light10/5/201726 10/5/201714Access ManagementCrash Reduction Factor• 5% to 31%10/5/201727Typical Installation Costs• $360,000 per mileBefore AfterDynamic Speed Feedback SignCrash Reduction Factor• 5% - 7% all crashesTypical Installation Costs• $30,000 per location10/5/201728 10/5/201715“Mumble” StripsCrash Reduction Factor• 20% run off road crashesTypical Installation Costs•Slightly higher then traditional rumbles $5850 per mile10/5/201729Typical Rumble StripMumble StripLED Stop SignsCrash Reduction Factor• Angle crashes: 0% to 71%Typical Installation Costs• $2,000 to $6,000 per intersection10/5/201730 10/5/201716Workshop Wrap-UpNext Steps:• Complete systemic roadway risk-factors and high-crash data analyses• Develop safety recommendations for priority crash locations• Develop County Road Safety Plan draft reportThank you for your participation and input! 31Questions?Contact:• Rick West –Otter Tail County Engineerrwest@co.otter-tail.mn.us218-998-8473• Mark Vizecky – MnDOT State AidMark.vizecky@state.mn.us651-366-383932 Refer to associated documentation for detailed definitions of categories used herein1 Source: MnDOT Crash Database, Retrieved 11/22/2016; 2011‐20152 Displayed data may not add to 100% due to omission of select categories1,277 39% 1,994 61%3 Includes Sideswipe Opposite Direction46 39% 73 61%844 42% 870 44% 249 12% 31 2%42 58% 16 22% 15 21% 0 0%751 89% 89 11% 4 0%39 93% 3 7% 0 0%440 59% 183 24%28 72% 10 26%283 64% 5 3% 81 44% 95 52%22 79% 0 0% 5 50% 5 50%34 (42%)2 (40%)24 8% 259 92%3 (4%)0 (0%)3 14% 19 86%5 (6%)0 (0%)127 49% 17 (21%)2 (40%)8 42%18 (22%)1 (20%)Horiz. Only2 (8%)0 (0%)Horiz. Only74 (29%)6 (32%)Horiz. Only37 (29%)2 (25%)Horiz. & Vert.0 (0%)0 (0%)Horiz. & Vert.49 (19%)6 (32%)Horiz. & Vert.25 (20%)1 (13%)Vert. Only9 (38%)2 (67%)Vert. Only42 (16%)3 (16%)Vert. Only23 (18%)2 (25%)Otter Tail County Crash Tree ‐ County Rural SystemExample 5‐Year Crashes1,2All ‐ % 3,271 Total CrashesSevere ‐ % 119 Severe CrashesState System Local SystemCounty Municipal TownshipOther/UnknownHead‐On3Run‐Off‐Road Right AngleOther/UnknownRural Urban Other/UnknownSegment IntersectionCurvature Characteristics Curvature Characteristics Curvature CharacteristicsLane Departure Signalized Thru‐Stop/YieldVersion 2.0, Printed 8/2/2017Rear‐EndFixed Object Left TurnLane DepartureOther/Unknown County Roadway Safety Plan Updates The Big Book of Ideas Prepared for: Otter Tail County Prepared by: Team October 2017 Version 1.1 MNDOT COUNTY ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN UPDATES OCTOBER 2017 PAGE | II VERSION 1.2 List of Strategies Rural Segments  Centerline Rumble Strip  Shoulder/Edgeline Rumble Strips  Safety Edge  Enhanced Edgeline (6” & 8”)  Shoulder Paving (2’, 4’, 6’)  Clear Zone Maintenance/Enhancements  Ditch/embankment Improvements Rural Curves  Chevrons  Delineators  High Friction Surface Treatment (HFST)  Dynamic Curve Signing  Lighting  Clear Zone Maintenance/Enhancements  Reconstruct [TT to a Single T intersection] Rural Intersections  Upgrade Signs and Pavement Markings  Streetlights (and approaches)  All-Way Stop/Yield  Rural Intersection Conflict Warning System (RICWS)  Roundabout  Turn Lanes (Offset, Channelized)  Removing a skew  LED Stop Signs Urban Segments  Access Management  Bike Lane/Boulevard MNDOT COUNTY ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN UPDATES OCTOBER 2017 PAGE | III VERSION 1.2  Urbanization (make it feel urban)  Dynamic Speed Feedback Sign Urban Intersections  Curb Extensions  Center Island Medians  Roundabout (including Mini Roundabout)  Urbanization (make it feel urban)  Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB)  High-Intensity Activated crossWalk Beacon (HAWK)  Turn Lanes (Offset, Channelized) MNDOT COUNTY ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN UPDATES OCTOBER 2017 PAGE | 1 VERSION 1.2 Rural Segments Strategy Crash Reduction Factor* Typical Installation Costs Centerline Rumble Strip 40% head-on/sideswipe crashes $3,600 per mile Shoulder/Edgeline Rumble Strip 20% run off road crashes $5,850 per mile Safety Edge 5% to 10%§ $10,000 to $20,000 per mile Enhanced Edgeline (6" & 8") 10% to 45% all rural serious crashes (6”) $2,000 per mile Shoulder Paving (2', 4', 6') 20% to 30% run-off-the-road crashes (with shoulder rumble) (2’ only) $54,000 per mile + $5,850 per mile (for Edge Rumble) Clear Zone Maintenance/Enhancements Fatal, Serious & Minor Injury Crashes: Increase of 28% to Decrease of 18% $50,000 to $500,000 per mile Ditch/Embankment Improvements 32% to 41% (Adding new guardrail to embankments – Run off road crashes) $500,000 to $1M per mile Notes: * - Crash reduction factors based on review of CMF Clearinghouse and other published research § - For all crashes Centerline Rumble Strips Shoulder Rumble Strips Source: Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions Source: Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions (FHWA, FHWA- (FHWA, FHWA-SA-07-011) SA-07-011) Safety Edge Enhanced Edgeline Source: FHWA Public Roads (Sept/Oct 2014; Vol 78 No. 2) Source: Low-Cost Treatments for Horizontal Curve Safety (FHWA, (FHWA, FHWA-SA-07-002) FHWA-SA-07-002) Roadway with 4-in edge line MNDOT COUNTY ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN UPDATES OCTOBER 2017 PAGE | 2 VERSION 1.2 Enhanced Edgeline Source: Low- Cost Treatments for Horizontal Curve Safety (FHWA, FHWA-SA-07-002) Shoulder Paving Source: https://mntransportationresearch.files.wordpress.com/2014 /06/dsc_8665nv.jpg?w=672&h=372&crop=1 Clear Zone Maintenance Source:https://nativeengineering.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/3.jpg?w =300&h=204 Ditch/Embankment Improvements Source: http://www.roadex.org/wp- content/uploads/elearning/drainage/5/521.jpg Roadway with 8-in edge line MNDOT COUNTY ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN UPDATES OCTOBER 2017 PAGE | 3 VERSION 1.2 Rural Curves Strategy Crash Reduction Factor* Typical Installation Costs Chevrons 20% to 30% $3,960 per curve Delineators 18% to 34%† $500 per curve High Friction Surface Treatment (HFST) All Crash Types - 24% Wet Road Crash Type – 52% $25 to $35 per square yard Dynamic Curve Signing Not Available $50,000 per curve Lighting See Rural Intersections See Rural Intersections Clear Zone Maintenance/Enhancements Fatal, Serious & Minor Injury Crashes: Increase of 28% to Decrease of 18% $10,000 - $250,000 per curve Reconstruct  TT to Single T Intersection Not Available $150,000 - $300,000 per curve Notes: * - Crash reduction factors based on review of CMF Clearinghouse and other published research † - Non-intersection, head-on, run-off-road, sideswipe, Nighttime crash types Chevrons Source: Low Cost Traffic Engineering Improvements: A Primer (FHWA, FHWA-OP-03-078) Delineators Source: Low-Cost Treatments for Horizontal Curve Safety (FHWA, FHWA-SA-07-002) High Friction Surface Treatment Source: Minnesota LTAP Technology Exchange (Fall 2014, Vo. 22 No. 4) Dynamic Curve Signing Source: FHWA, Sequential Dynamic Curve Warning System: Product Safety Performance Evaluation (2011) MNDOT COUNTY ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN UPDATES OCTOBER 2017 PAGE | 4 VERSION 1.2 Street Lights Clear Zone Maintenance Source: Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions (FHWA, Source:https://nativeengineering.files.wordpress.com/ FHWA-SA-07-011) 2016/12/3.jpg?w=300&h=204 TT to T Intersection Reconstruction Source: MnDOT 2015 Traffic Safety Fundamentals Handbook MNDOT COUNTY ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN UPDATES OCTOBER 2017 PAGE | 5 VERSION 1.2 Rural Intersection Strategy Crash Reduction Factor* Typical Installation Costs Upgrade Signs and Pavement Markings 40% upgrade of all signs and pavement markings/ 15% for STOP AHEAD pavement marking $2,640 per approach† Streetlights (and approaches) 25% to 40% of nighttime crashes $6,000 per light All-Way Stop/Yield Not Available $1,000 per intersection Rural Intersection Conflict Warning System (RICWS) 50% all crashes/ 75% severe right angle crashes $75,000 to $125,000 per intersection Roundabout 20% to 50% all crashes/ 60% to 90% right-angle crashes $1,000,000 per intersection Turn Lanes (Offset, Channelized) Create Positive Offset Left Turn Lanes - ~35% (All + Severe Crashes) Channelize Right Turn Lanes – 43% - 60% (All crash severities) $75,000 - $250,000 LED Stop Signsδ Angle Crashes: 0% to 71% $2,000 to $6,000 per intersection Remove Skew 0% to 33% $150,000 - $300,000 per intersection Notes: * - Crash reduction factors based on review of CMF Clearinghouse and other published research † - Includes $540 per STOP sign, $540 per junction sign assembly, $600 per STOP AHEAD sign, $600 per STOP AHEAD pavement marking message, and $360 per stop bar § - Source: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/innovative/others/casestudies/fhwasa09016/fhwasa09016.pdf @ - 2-star quality studies only ^ - http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/medianaccelerationlanestudy.pdf δ – Source: http://www.its.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/reportdetail.html?id=2330 Upgrade Signs and Pavement Markings Source: Minnesota CRSP Street Lights Source: Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions (FHWA, FHWA- SA-07-011) MNDOT COUNTY ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN UPDATES OCTOBER 2017 PAGE | 6 VERSION 1.2 All-Way Stop Controled intersection Source: http://www.ite.org/uiig/images/type/clip_image010.jpg Rural Intersection Conflict Warning System Source: MnDOT Traffic Engineering (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng /signals /conflictwarning.html) Roundabout Source: Innovative Intersection Safety Improvement Strategies and Management Practices: A Domestic Scan (FHWA, FHWA-SA-06-016) Offset Right Turn Lane Source: Review of Iowa’s Rural Intersection Crashes: Application of Methodology for Identifying Intersections for IDS (MnDOT, MN/RC 2007-27) LED Stop Sign Source: MnDOT – MNTH 95 & Chisago County State Aide Highway MNDOT COUNTY ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN UPDATES OCTOBER 2017 PAGE | 7 VERSION 1.2 Remove Skew Source: Google Earth MNDOT COUNTY ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN UPDATES OCTOBER 2017 PAGE | 8 VERSION 1.2 Urban Segments Strategy Crash Reduction Factor* Typical Installation Costs Access Mgmt (Access Mgmt Plan) 5% to 31% $360,000 per mile§ Bike Lane/Boulevard Approximately 60% (Some studies have noted increases) Repurposing existing road ~$5,000 per mile New Construction of Separated Boulevard ~ $500,000 per mile Urbanization (make it feel urban) Not Available $500,000 - $1,000,000 per mile Dynamic Speed Feedback Sign All crashes 5% - 7% $30,000 per location Notes: * - Crash reduction factors based on review of CMF Clearinghouse and other published research § - For management of unsignalized intersection movements within a corridor that has a divided median. Typical project may include minor street diverters, signed turn restrictions, and median closings. Before Access Management Source: Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions (FHWA, FHWA-SA- 07-011) Bicycle Boulevard Source: Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety (MnDOT, Report 2013-22) After Bike Lane Source: Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety (MnDOT, Report 2013-22) MNDOT COUNTY ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN UPDATES OCTOBER 2017 PAGE | 9 VERSION 1.2 Rural Design - TH 2 Approaching Floodwood, MN Urbanization Source: Google Street View Dynamic Speed Feedback Sign Source: http://1x57.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/25-mph- regulatory-speed-limit-sign-with-radar- sign1-173x300.jpg Urban Design - TH 2 in Floodwood, MN MNDOT COUNTY ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN UPDATES OCTOBER 2017 PAGE | 10 VERSION 1.2 Urban Intersections Strategy Crash Reduction Factor* Typical Installation Costs Curb Extensions Increase in vehicles yielding to pedestrians $36,000 per corner Center Island Medians 46% in vehicle/pedestrian crashes $24,000 per approach Roundabout (including Mini Roundabout) 20% to 50% all crashes/ 60% to 90% right-angle crashes $4,200,000 per intersection Urbanization (make it feel urban) Not Available $250,000 - $500,000 per intersection Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) 75% of drivers yield to pedestrians $15,000 High-Intensity Activated crossWalk Beacon (HAWK) 69% Vehicle/Pedestrian $50,000 to $120,000 Turn Lanes (Offset, Channelized) 27% $150,000 to $500,000 Notes: * - Crash reduction factors based on review of CMF Clearinghouse and other published research a – Virginia DOT Report: https://www.railstotrails.org/resourcehandler.ashx?id=4063 Curb Extensions Source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/ pedbike/05085/images/fig205.jpg Center Island Medians Source:http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/images/sa12_01 1.jpg Roundabout Source: Innovative Intersection Safety Improvement Strategies and Management Practices: A Domestic Scan (FHWA, FHWA-SA-06-016) MNDOT COUNTY ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN UPDATES OCTOBER 2017 PAGE | 11 VERSION 1.2 Urbanization Source: Google Earth Street View Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon Source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/11mayjun /images/do1.jpg HAWK Source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/10045/ images/hawk_027.jpg MNDOT COUNTY ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN UPDATES OCTOBER 2017 PAGE | 12 VERSION 1.2 Channelized Right Turn Lane Source:http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12004/imag es/c4b.jpg Safety PlanCOUNTY ROADWAY Toward ZERO Deaths March 2017 Why the need for County Roadway Safety Plans? The commitment to create a roadway safety plan for each of Minnesota’s 87 counties was based on the following key facts: 1. Approximately 60% of severe crashes (those involving a fatality or serious injury) occur on local roadways; those operated by Minnesota’s counties had the most severe crashes. 2. Local agencies are responsible for more than 90% of the state’s roadway miles. 3. The majority of roadway safety investments have been made on the state system. Consequently, it would be impossible to achieve Minnesota’s long-term goal of zero fatalities if minimal investment is made to address safety on local roadways. What are the results of CRSP so far? The first round of CRSP projects resulted in the implementation of nearly $60 million of road safety improvements from 2012 to 2014. During this time, Minnesota’s county system *fatality crash rate decreased 25% (Figure 1). Although an initial success, there is more work to be done. In 2015, there were 472 severe crashes on Minnesota’s county roadways. The CRSP Update effort is key to achieving continued declines in fatal and serious injury crashes. What is the goal of CRSP efforts? The goal of the CRSPs is to support the statewide initiative of moving Minnesota Toward Zero Deaths through continued reduction of fatal and serious injury crashes on county roadways. The CRSPs align with the Minnesota Strategic Highway Safety Plan and its statewide goal of fewer than 300 fatalities and fewer than 850 serious injuries by 2020 by providing Minnesota counties with a list of location-specific safety concerns and a prioritized list of roadway safety improvements or strategies that will have the greatest potential to reduce severe crashes. “CRSP helped to shift our safety emphasis from reacting to severe crashes in spot locations to a proactive, systemwide approach. Our state’s actionable commitment to TZD has made a life-saving difference.” Mark Vizecky, State Aid Program Engineer, MnDOT * Fatality Crash Rate expressed as fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled Crash Facts Approximately 60% of severe crashes occur on local roads. • Nearly 50% of severe crashes involve vehicle lane departure • 42% of these crashes occurred along a curve • 37% of these involve hitting a fixed object • Over 40% of severe crashes are intersection-related • 43% of these are angle crashes 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 Fatality Rate*Year2003200420052006200720082009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 County SystemState Highway SystemInterstate System Begin Preparation of County Roadway Safety Plans Begin Widespread Deployment of Safety Strategies Along County System Figure 1: Fatality Rates by System What is a County Roadway Safety Plan? A County Roadway Safety Plan (CRSP) is a document that identifies safety concerns on county roads and suggests improvements that each county can implement. The Minnesota Department of Transportation in partnership with the Federal Highway Administration and the Minnesota county engineers worked together to develop these plans and by 2014, a CRSP was completed for each of the 87 counties in Minnesota. The “CRSP Updates” is an effort to review and update the initial CRSPs. County Roadway Safety Plan Updates Safety PlanCOUNTY ROADWAY Toward ZERO Deaths March 2017 Prepared by CH2M HILL, Inc. What is next? Although the CRSP Updates process includes shared core components to build each county’s safety plan (Figure 3), individualized engagement with each county will help to ensure each plan reflects unique county needs. What will the CRSP updated plans include? The updated CRSPs will include a safety prioritization and planning process based on each county’s crash data and specific safety planning needs. Each plan will include a: • Review of all county road segments, curves and intersections • Data-driven review of crashes on county roads over the last five years • Summary of safety focus areas and crash types (e.g., lane departure) • List of recommended high priority safety strategies • Prioritized list of locations that are most at risk for severe crashes in the future • Prioritized list of location-specific safety strategies to consider for implementation How is the current CRSP Update different from the initial CRSP? Building upon progress made and applying lessons learned from the initial CRSP, the following are a few of the enhancements to the CRSP Updates process: 9 Updated five-year crash data (2011-2015) 9 Two comprehensive crash analyses approaches: • A systemic review of all roadway characteristics to identify locations that are a higher risk for severe crashes • A review of locations with a higher number and rate of severe crashes. 9 Continuous county engagement and customization based on each county’s needs 9 Additional safety improvements/strategies (e.g., chevron curve warning, Figure 2) with an emphasis on those proven to reduce crashes 9 Research one-pagers on key safety strategies 9 Optional county board member outreach Figure 3: CRSP Update Process Components Data Collection (Roadway Geometrics) Potential Safety Strategies Systemic & High Crash Location Analysis Safety Workshop Prioritization of Roadways at Risk for Crash Customized Safety Plan Optional Board Presentation Figure 4: CRSP Updates Phase 1 Participating Counties Figure 2: Example Safety Strategy: Chevron Curve Warning “When we began the 2014 CRSP, many constituents were opposed to intersection lighting, viewing it as a waste of taxpayer dollars. Following implementation, they witnessed its benefits and now request that it be more widely deployed. CRSP has raised our awareness of effective safety strategies as well as the conversation about our safety program.” Wayne Johnson, Otter Tail County Commissioner The statewide project to update all County Roadway Safety Plans will occur in phases; the first phase involves 15 counties across the state (Figure 4) and will be completed in early 2018. END County Roadway Safety Plan Updates What are enhanced crosswalks? Enhanced crosswalks are pedestrian crossing countermeasures used in addition to the pavement markings typically used at pedestrian crossings not controlled by a traffic signal or STOP sign. The most common examples of enhanced crosswalks include: • Median refuge islands • Curb extensions • Street lights • Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) • High-Intensity Activated CrossWalK beacon (HAWK beacon) Why are enhanced crosswalks needed? Research consistently conveys that marked crosswalks alone do NOT reduce the number or rate of pedestrian-vehicle crashes.5 Since only marking a crosswalk is unlikely to improve pedestrian safety, the use of enhanced crossing countermeasures is suggested to improve crosswalk safety. Although definitive rationale is not available as to why marked crosswalks alone are ineffective, theories include: • False sense of security on the part of the pedestrians and inconsistent driving behaviors • Distracted drivers and pedestrians • Reduced effectiveness as a result of either overuse or warning of conditions that drivers rarely encounter How effective are enhanced crosswalks? Curb Extensions and Median Refuge Islands are countermeasures that reduce crossing distances. In the case of median refuge islands, allow for pedestrians to cross one direction of travel at a time. These improvements are PROVEN effective with crash reductions in the range of 40 to 45 percent.2 Street Lighting at isolated locations in rural areas is considered PROVEN effective, with a crash reduction in the range of 30 to 40 percent. Limited research is available on the effectiveness of pedestrian-related crashes in urban areas. HAWK Beacons and RRBFs are relatively new technologies with promising initial research. HAWK beacons and RRFBs have crash reductions over 50 percent4, and RRFBs have documented high yielding rates to pedestrians in excess of 80 percent.4 High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk Beacon Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Curb Extensions Safety PlanCOUNTY ROADWAY Toward ZERO Deaths JUNE 2017 Enhanced Crosswalks Prepared by CH2M HILL, Inc. Cost Per Crossing • Curb Extensions, Median Island, RRFB: $10,000-$25,000 • HAWK Beacon: $75,000-$150,000 Deployment should be prioritized by risk What are the additional considerations? A specific type of conflict at marked and unmarked crosswalks is the multi- vehicle threat. This conflict occurs on multi-lane roads when a vehicle in one lane stops for a pedestrian and a trailing vehicle (in the same direction) in an adjacent lane potentially hits the pedestrian when they emerge from in front of the stopped vehicle. This type of crash occurs as a result of both the pedestrian and driver failing to see one another. Potential strategies to address the multi-vehicle threat include: • The addition of an RRFB or HAWK to provide approaching drivers with a warning of the presence of a pedestrian attempting to cross the road. • Four-to-three-lane road conversions (road diet) since the multi-vehicle threat occurs on roads with more than three lanes. END What are candidate locations for enhanced crosswalks? The primary guidelines for installing crosswalk markings are documented in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD).1 To identify locations for enhanced crosswalks, the MN MUTCD guidance recommends that agencies prioritize their systems based on need and existing factors such as: Although no research identifies minimum levels of pedestrian volumes that would indicate a threshold level of need, maximum vehicle volumes and speed limits are documented at approximately 12,000 vehicles per day and 40 miles per hour along multilane roadways. Therefore, it is recommended that candidate locations for enhanced crosswalks are two- or three-lane roads with speeds of 35 miles per hour or less and traffic volumes under 12,000 vehicles per day. Refer to guidelines for establshing crosswalks and consideration of a variety of enhancements.6 “Crosswalk lines should not be used indiscriminately. An engineering study should be performed before they are installed at a location away from a traffic control signal or an approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign.” Section 3B.18, MN MUTCD • Number of lanes • Presence of median • Distance from adjacent signals • Pedestrian volume and delay • Average daily traffic • Speed limit • Geometry • Potential consolidation of nearby crossings References 1. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2015. Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/mutcd/. Accessed June 2017. 2. Preston, H., Nikki Farrington, and Charles Zegeer. 2013. Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety. MnDOT Report 2013-22. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/TS/2013/201322.pdf. Accessed June 2017. 3. Transit Cooperative Research Program. 2006. Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. NCHRP Report 562. https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploawds/2010/08/NCHRP-562-Improving-Pedestrian-Safety-at-Unsignalized-Crossings.pdf. Accessed June 2017. 4. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011. Evaluation of Pedestrian and Bicycle Engineering Countermeasures: Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons, HAWKs, Sharrows, Crosswalk Markings, and the Development of an Evaluation Methods. Publication FHWA-HRT-11-039. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/11039/11039.pdf. Accessed June 2017. 5. Zegeer, C. 2005. Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations. Report FHWA HRT-04-100. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04100/04100.pdf. Accessed June 2017. 6. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2015. Pedestrian Crossing Facilitation. Technical Memorandum No. 15-01-T-01. http://dotapp7.dot.state.mn.us/edms/download?docId=1552495. Accessed June 2017. 7. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP Report 500: Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine. http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/175381.aspx. Modified March 2017. Safety PlanCOUNTY ROADWAY Toward ZERO Deaths JUNE 2017 Enhanced Crosswalks 10% to 35%Decrease Consistent decrease reported Effectiveness What are enhanced edge lines? Enhanced edge lines refer to pavement markings that are either wider than typical or provide other enhancements such as recessing the marking or using an alternative material. Along roadways with edge lines installed, most agencies have traditionally used a 4-inch-wide latex (water-based paint) line placed on the surface of the road, consistent with the guidelines in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD). Section 3A.6 (functions, widths and patterns of longitudinal pavement markings) of the MN MUTCD states that “the width of the line indicates the degree of emphasis.”1 The chosen width, or degree of emphasis, can be based on a combination of agency judgment and practice, economic benefit, and safety need. The three most common techniques for providing enhanced edge lines include: • Using a wider 6-inch line for heightened visibility of the line and road edge • Using a special paint that provides benefits such as higher levels of retroreflectivity (a wet-reflective material that contains larger glass beads) or increased durability • Recessing the markings in a shallow trough to protect from snow plow damage What is the purpose of enhanced edge lines? Both nationally and in Minnesota, road departure crashes account for more fatalities and serious injuries than any other type of crash. A first step in efforts to mitigate these crashes is attempting to keep vehicles on the roadway by focusing on improvements to the road edge. This further suggests that if the reduction of these kinds of crashes is desired, agencies should improve road edge delineation by using enhanced edge lines along key roadway segments that are identified as being the most at-risk for road departure crashes. How effective are enhanced edge lines? Two studies2,6 documented the effects of providing non-recessed enhanced edge lines along approximately 3,800 miles of two-lane rural roads in Michigan and Minnesota. Both studies found that replacing 4-inch edge lines with 6-inch edge lines was an effective countermeasure for reducing run-off-road crashes. Crash reduction factors include: • Total crashes were reduced by 16 to 18 percent (statistically significant). • Severe crashes were reduced by 10 to 18 percent (not statistically significant). • Total run-off-road right crashes were reduced by 34 percent (statistically significant). • Severe run-off-road right crashes were reduced by around 85 percent (not statistically significant). Safety PlanCOUNTY ROADWAY Toward ZERO Deaths JUNE 2017 Enhanced Edge Lines Prepared by CH2M HILL, Inc. References 1. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2015. Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. February. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/mutcd/mnmutcd2015/mnmutcd.pdf. Accessed June 2017. 2. Fleming, K. 2013. Evaluation of Wider Edge Lines on Minnesota Roads. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/docs/sixinchedgelines.pdf. Accessed June 2017. 3. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2006. Evaluation of Potential Benefits of Wider and Brighter Edge Line Pavement Markings. FHWA/TX-10/0-5862-1.FHWA/CTR. https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-5862-1.pdf. 2006. 4. Before-After Comparison of Edge Line Effects on Rural, Two-Lane Highways. FHWA/TX-07/0-5090-2. https://ctr.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubs/0_5090_2.pdf. 5. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Texas Transportation Institute (TTI). 2002. The Use of Wider Longitudinal Pavement Markings. FHWA HRT 02-0024-1. http://www.pottersbeads.com/Portals/1/docs/widerLongitudinalmarkings.pdf. 6. TTI. 2012. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Wider Edge Line Pavement Markings. Sponsored by American Glass Bead Manufacturer’s Association. https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/TTI-2012-1.pdf. Are there additional considerations? Some local agencies have questioned the economics of securing safety funding for an initial deployment if they would then be responsible for the total increased cost of refreshing the wider edge lines annually or bi-annually. To address this concern, MnDOT and FHWA have worked to develop a new policy about federal participation for items such as pavement markings that have a relatively short service life. Previously it was FHWA’s position that they would support the implementation of safety countermeasures but not support their maintenance. However, to encourage a wider deployment of low-cost strategies, some of which have short service lives, FHWA will now support the re-application of pavement markings after their service life has ended as long as two conditions are met: 1. The type of crashes being address (road departure) and the solution (enhanced pavement markings) must still be identified as priorities in Minnesota’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2. The segments proposed for re-painting must still be considered high priority candidates based on the outcome of a systemwide risk assessment. END What are candidate locations for enhanced edge lines? Road departure crashes are the predominant severe crash type along two- lane rural roads but the density of these crashes is low, with approximately one severe road departure crash per mile every 167 years. These crashes are widely dispersed and their location and frequency change over time across these rural two-lane systems. An analysis of the severe road departure crashes found a set of roadway and traffic characteristics that identify segments considered to be at-risk. These characteristics include: curves, high number of accesses, and a particular range of traffic volumes. Segments exhibiting most or all of these characteristics were considered at-risk and priority candidates for safety investment, including enhanced edge lines. Cost Varies significantly based on material. • A 6-inch edgeline will cost approximately 25 percent more than the typical 4-inch edgeline. • Typical per-mile costs: −4-inch latex: $300 −4-inch epoxy: $1,000 −6-inch latex: $400 −6-inch epoxy: $1,300 −6-inch ground-in wet reflective epoxy: $3,500 Safety PlanCOUNTY ROADWAY Toward ZERO Deaths JUNE 2017 Enhanced Edge Lines What are LED STOP Signs? Light-emitting diode (LED)-enhanced STOP signs are the familiar octagonal red signs with white lettering that also include red LEDs on the outer edge of the sign. The LEDs are configured to either operate continually, or to only flash when a detection system senses a vehicle approaching the sign. What is the purpose of LED STOP signs? The purpose of LED STOP signs is to capture the driver’s attention through supplemental visual input. It is intended to increase stopping compliance and prevent right-angle crashes by alerting drivers of upcoming roadway changes so they do not unintentionally run the STOP sign. Right-angle crashes are the most common type of crash that result in a fatality or serious injury at through-stop controlled intersections. Although some crashes involve drivers running a STOP sign, nearly two-thirds of angle crashes are attributed to drivers not selecting a large enough gap between their car and the approaching vehicle on the major road to safely complete a crossing or turning maneuver. This type of right-angle crash is not addressed by the installation of an LED STOP sign. Key Functions Drivers approaching an intersection receive heightened visual input via the flashing LEDs, which: • Increases conspicuity and awareness of the STOP sign under normal and low-visibility conditions • Attempts to increase driver compliance and caution at stop-controlled intersections Figure 1: Enhanced LED STOP Sign How effective are LED STOP signs? Research1 documents three primary performance measures for LED STOP signs: (1) deceleration rates of approaching vehicles, (2) the fraction of vehicles making a complete stop, and (3) change in the frequency of crashes at the intersection. The research included the following results1: 1. Adding LED STOP signs did not substantially change driver reaction to slow their vehicles as they approached the intersections – reported reductions were in the range of 1 to 3 miles per hour with slightly higher reductions at night. 2. The LED STOP signs did not change the fraction of vehicles making complete stops at the intersections (when minor approach drivers did not encounter opposing vehicles on the major approaches). 3. The estimated crash reduction was determined to be approximately 42 percent. However, this estimate is not statistically significant because of the small number of right-angle crashes at intersections with the LED installations. The statistical analysis indicates that the reduction may range between 0 and 71 percent; a more precise number cannot credibly be supported by the data. Decrease in crashes reported Reduction valueinconsistent Effectiveness Photo modified from original; credit: Amir Patel 0%to 71% Safety PlanCOUNTY ROADWAY Toward ZERO Deaths JUNE 2017 LED STOP Signs Prepared by CH2M HILL, Inc. What are the most suitable applications for LED STOP signs? Installing LED STOP signs reactively in response to one severe crash at one intersection is not likely to be an effective approach because of a low density of severe right-angle crashes at through-stop intersections, only a minority of crashes involve running the STOP sign, and a lack of consistent crash reduction estimate. Instead, a potentially more effective approach would be to install LED STOP signs selectively at the few intersections along a system that have actually experienced multiple crashes from drivers running stop signs. Alternatively, broader effective deployment across a system should include intersections identified to be high-risk based on a data-driven evaluation and where sight lines to the STOP sign are restricted by road geometry or topography. Guidance from the MnDOT Traffic Engineering Manual (TEM) suggests that at least two of the following criteria should be met for the intersection to be considered for LED STOP sign installation: • Limited visibility on approach to the intersection • History of crashes documented to be caused by a failure to stop and deemed preventable by implementation of conspicuity improvements • At a rural junction of two or more high speed trunk highways to warn drivers of an unexpected crossing of another highway • At a rural junction of a trunk highway and a local road which has no STOP controlled intersection within five miles In addition, the TEM advises that alternative improvements should be considered at the intersection prior to selecting a LED STOP sign, such as: • Installing a STOP AHEAD sign or pavement message • Increasing the size of the STOP sign or adding a second sign on the left side • Adding retroreflective strips to the STOP sign support • Install transverse rumble strips • Add a STOP bar “Flashing LED STOP and YIELD signs should only be considered for installation in situations necessitating enhanced visibility of the sign. When usage is limited to special circumstances, flashing LED STOP and YIELD signs may be effective safety countermeasures.” Section 6-5.07, MnDOT Traffic Engineering Manual Cost • Per Intersection: $2,000 to $6,000 • Includes one LED-enhanced STOP sign on two approaches, sizes between 30” and 48” • Cost primarily covers the LED and commonly solar charging equipment Are there additional considerations? If an agency decides to install an LED STOP sign at a particular intersection, it is recommended to document why that intersection was selected and why other similar intersections were not. Minnesota tort law provides a variety of immunities from accusations of negligence when an agency can clearly demonstrate their thought process leading to the decision to implement. END References 1. Davis, G. and J. Hourdos. 2014. Estimating the Crash Reduction and Vehicle Dynamics Effects of Flashing LED STOP Signs. MnDOT Report 2014-02. http://www.its.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/reportdetail.html?id=2330. Accessed June 2017. 2. Arnold, E. and K. Lantz. 2007. Evaluation of Best Practices in Traffic Operations and Safety: Phase I: Flashing LED STOP Signs and Optical Speed Bars. Report VTRC 07-R34. http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/07-r34.pdf. Accessed June 2017. 3. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2015. Traffic Engineering Manual, Chapter 6 – Traffic Signs and Delineation. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/tem/. Accessed June 2017. Safety PlanCOUNTY ROADWAY Toward ZERO Deaths JUNE 2017 LED STOP Signs Typical Seal Coat (Chip Seal)Typical Micro Surface What is the issue? Seal coating and micro surfacing present a challenge for the performance and maintenance of pavement markings. Seal coating is a widely used pavement resurfacing technique that consists of applying a thin layer of liquid asphalt, followed by a cover layer of stone chips. Micro surface treatments involve a machine laid combination of crushed aggregate, asphalt emulsion, mineral filler (such as Portland cement), and water that is spread as a relatively thin layer over an existing pavement surface. Seal coats and micro surfaces provide excellent traction for drivers, even under wet pavement conditions. However, both treatments produce a coarse pavement surface with relatively large gaps between the aggregate which provides a way for paint to sink below the surface where it is not visible to motorists. This problem is magnified during adverse conditions, such as low light and wet pavement. Even when the lane markings are new, they are seen as faded or non-existent. What are potential solutions? The two most common materials for marking edge and center lines in Minnesota include latex paint and epoxy.2 There is a long history of agencies using latex paint because it is inexpensive, can be easily painted over, and provides reasonable levels of retro-reflectivity on roadways that have traditional, smoother surfaces. Pavement markings wear out due to the volume of roadway traffic, harsh weather, and loss of material from winter maintenance activities. These conditions result in a typical service life of 1 to 2 years for latex paint. Epoxy has a slightly longer service life, usually 3 to 5 years, but lower unit costs and ease of application result in most agencies opting to continue using latex paint. In response to these issues, research was conducted that focused on identifying the performance of a variety of potential solutions, including: latex paint, latex over a primer coat, epoxy, and a combination of a layer of latex applied immediately following the chip seal followed by epoxy the next year.1 How effective are these solutions? For chip seals, the research1 found: • A thick layer (high-build) of either latex or epoxy performed well. • The combination of striping with latex over the seal coat immediately after resurfacing followed by applying epoxy the following year performed very well, with observed service lives of 2 to 3 years. The research concluded that the most cost-effective and easy to implement solution was the combination of applying a thin coat of latex immediately after the chip seal followed by a layer of epoxy the following year. In contrast to applying thick layers of paint, using standard layers of latex and epoxy is consistent with MnDOT guidelines for all road surfaces2. The material can be ordered using MnDOT’s materials specification, requires no installation adjustments and performed well on the research test deck. For mirco surfaces, the research1 found: • Thin layers of latex markings by themselves, with and without primer coatings, performed poorly and needed repainting less than 1 year after installation. • Thin layers of epoxy performed well, even after 2 years. Safety PlanCOUNTY ROADWAY Toward ZERO Deaths JUNE 2017 Pavement Markings on Challenging Surfaces Prepared by CH2M HILL, Inc. References 1 Hawkins, N., Smadi, O., and Knickerbocker, S. 2016. Evaluation of Pavement Markings on Challenging Surfaces. MnDOT Report 2016-0.8 http:// www.dot.state.mn.us/research/TS/2016/201608.pdf. Accessed June 2017. 2 Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2014. MnDOT Provisions for Pavement Marking Operations. Technical Memorandum No. 14-11-T-02. http://dotapp7.dot.state.mn.us/edms/download?docId=1520674. Accessed June 2017. 3 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. Nighttime Visibility Pavement Markings – Regulations/Standards. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/pavementreg.cfm. Accessed June 2017. Cost • Per Linear Foot • Latex: $0.08 • Epoxy: $0.24 • Combined: $0.32 Service Life: 2-3 Years when combined as suggested on chip seals or with a single layer of latex on micro surfaces. Additional considerations? The Federal Highway Administration has initiated a rulemaking process that would require agencies that provide center and edge lines along segments exceeding specific speeds (35 mph) and volumes (6,000 vpd) to manage them to an adopted retroreflectivity threshold.2,3 If an agency puts these lines down, they must maintain them according to the levels mandated by the Federal Highway Administration on the higher speed and volume segments. This impending requirement places a greater emphasis on dealing with challenging surfaces as the use of these resurfacing treatments becomes more common. END Photos illustrate the degredation of a thin epoxy on a micro surface. Between 50% and 70% of the paint remains even after two winters. The research concluded that this would still exceed the expected performance measure for retro-reflectivity. What are the possible locations for implementation?1 The suggested combination of epoxy over latex can be expected to provide the highest possible levels of retroreflectivity on chip seals. On micro surface overlays, the use of a single layer of epoxy provided good performance after two winters. Initial (2013) Initial (2013) After 2 winters (2016) After 2 winters (2016) 12 mil Polyacrylate Two-Component Epoxy 12 mil Urethane Modified Epoxy Safety PlanCOUNTY ROADWAY Toward ZERO Deaths JUNE 2017 Pavement Markings on Challenging Surfaces What is the Issue? Nationally, approximately 25 percent of bicycle-related crashes that result in serious injuries or fatalities occur on rural roadways.1 Due to this small proportion of bicycle-related crashes, limited rural-specific research has been conducted, resulting in limited data and existing research. In contrast to urban areas, rural roadways (defined by the road design and land use) have characteristics that pose an increased risk for bicyclists including higher vehicle speeds (and speed differentials), a high fraction of heavy commercial vehicles, and a general lack of bicycle facilities. What are potential countermeasures? Where rural roadways are the only connections in the local bicycle network, countermeasures to address rural bicycle safety fall into two categories; (1) providing a physical space to accommodate bicyclists, and (2) enhancing crossing locations for bicyclists to cross rural roadways. Strategies for providing a physical space for bicyclists include on-road facilities such as paved shoulders/designated bicycle lanes. Strategies for enhancing crossing locations include providing marked crosswalks, refuge islands, (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs), and street lights. Minnesota averages approximately 55 severe bicycle-related crashes per year. • 20% are along rural county roadways • 75% are segment-related (versus intersection) • 75% occur under daylight conditions • 50% occur along roadways with volumes above 1,000 vehicles per day Where to start? A good first step is understanding the local bicycle network, including existing facilities and identifying potential users and destinations along the rural system of roadways (see figures). This provides the basis to identify a subset of an agency’s road system that could provide opportunities for bicyclists to travel between origins and destinations while minimizing exposure to high speed and high volume roadways. Possible resources to support this effort include existing state, county, or municipal bicycle maps. If such resources are not available, consider mapping alternative routes for connecting destinations along existing roads. Destination of Bicycle Trips Origin of Bicycle Trips SH OU LD E R RURA L R O A D S ID E P A T H Paved Shoulder Buffer (Optional)4 ft (1.2 m) min.1.5–4 ft (0.5–1.2 m) or wider Bike Lane Buffer (Optional)6 ft (1.8 m)1.5–4 ft (0.5–1.2 m) or wider When adequate width is provided, shoulders can serve bicycle trips along roads too busy for comfortable shared roadway travel. Bike lanes establish an area for exlusive bicycle use outside the path of motor vehicles. Safety PlanCOUNTY ROADWAY Toward ZERO Deaths JUNE 2017 Rural Bicycle Safety Practices Prepared by CH2M HILL, Inc. References 1 Carter, D. and F. Council. 2006. Factors Contributing to Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes on Rural Highways. FHWA HRT-06/06-10(1M)E. 2 Nabors, D., E. Goughnour, L. Thomas, W. DeSantis, and M.Sawyer. 2012. Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists. Report FHWA-SA-12-018. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa12018/. Accessed June 2017. 3 Zegeer, C. 2005. Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations. Report FHWA HRT-04-100. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04100/04100.pdf. Accessed June 2017. 4 Preston, H., Nikki Farrington, and Charles Zegeer. 2013. Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety. MnDOT Report 2013-22. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/TS/2013/201322.pdf. Accessed June 2017. 5 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2016. Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks. FHWA HEP-17-024. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/small_towns/fhwahep17024_lg.pdf. Accessed June 2017. What are possible locations for implementation? Along Roadways: Rural county roadways with volumes greater than 1,000 vehicles per day account for less than 20 percent of the system by mileage, but account for 50 percent of rural bicycle-related severe crashes. The higher volumes equate to increased vehicle and bicycle interaction, and these roads would be better candidates for dedicated bicycle facilities. Crossings: Candidate locations for an enhanced crossing may include where bicyclists must cross a rural roadway to either access or continue along a bicycle route. Although marking a crosswalk alone is not recommended3, combining it with a refuge island, street lights, or a flashing beacon would likely result in better safety outcomes.4 What are the additional considerations? The research1 identifies a number of roadway design features that have created challenges for bicycle safety, including: drainage grates, longitudinal joints, bridge expansion joints, clear zones, and sight distance. No research raises concerns about bicycles encountering rumble strips when employing the design that includes 12 foot gaps every 48 feet. The installation of “Share the Road” warning signs and reducing speed limits along rural roadways are frequently requested by bicycle advocates. Not enough research has been conducted to conclude an effectiveness of either of these strategies specific to bicyclist safety. However, studies on the general topics of warning signs and regulatory sign-based speed reductions have concluded that neither strategies are successful at either improving safety or achieving a speed reduction. Comprehensive approaches to addressing safety likely yield the best results. In addition to considering infrastructure improvements, other topics should address the rider (wearing helmets and reflective clothing; adhering to traffic laws), the bicycle (reflective tape and lights), and driver behavior (distraction, speeding, or passing too close). END How effective are these countermeasures? Limited research conducted on rural bicycle safety results in limited information about the safety effectiveness of specific countermeasures in rural applications. Paved Shoulders as Dedicated Space for Bicyclists would separate motorists’ and bicyclists’ paths and likely reduce crashes. However, no estimate of crash reduction is yet documented. Enhanced crossings in rural context have neither been widely deployed nor researched. Specific to urban/suburban applications, simply marking crossings almost always increases the frequency of crashes3 and should not be used by itself. • The addition of median refuge islands and street lighting has crash reductions in the range of 35 to 45 percent. • National research on RRFBs does not yet cite any crash reduction factors but does note that vehicle yielding rates are improved by approximately 80 percent. Safety PlanCOUNTY ROADWAY Toward ZERO Deaths JUNE 2017 Rural Bicycle Safety Practices What are transverse rumble strips? Transverse rumble strips are grooves cut into the pavement that act as a warning device. When driven over, the strips create noticeable sound and vibrations to warn drivers of an approaching intersection where they must slow down or stop. There are two basic layouts for transverse rumble strips; extending across the entire traffic lane or placement only in the wheel tracks. The wheel track layout is preferred because it allows drivers that do not need additional warning to avoid the rumbles without having to drive into the opposing lane. What is the purpose of using transverse rumble strips? The purpose of the rumble strips is to capture the driver’s attention. The noise and vibration produced by the transverse rumble strips alert drivers of upcoming roadway changes so they do not unintentionally run a STOP sign, an action that could result in the injury or death of vehicle occupants. Key Functions Drivers receive a warning through the noise and vibrations generated by the rumble strips, which: • Increases awareness of upcoming roadway changes • Alerts drives to reduce speed when approaching the intersection • Attempts to reduce unintentional running of a STOP sign “It is concluded that the frequency of crashes at rural intersections is independent of the presence or absence of rumble strips.” 5 33%Decrease 36% Increase Inconsistent results6 reported Effectiveness Safety PlanCOUNTY ROADWAY Toward ZERO Deaths JUNE 2017 Transverse Rumble Strips How effective are transverse rumble strips? Transverse rumble strips are intended to address the unintentional running of a STOP sign1. However, this represents only one of several common scenarios for right-angle crashes at rural through-stop intersections3. For example, transverse rumble strips will not benefit drivers who have stopped, but misjudge gaps in traffic as they pull out onto the highway. Drivers are more likely to slow down when approaching through- stop intersections that have transverse rumble strips4. However, the results of crash studies are inconsistent, sometimes showing decreases, increases, and roughly no change. Consequently, transverse rumble strips would not necessarily reduce the number or severity of right-angle crashes, at all locations. With respect to the factors that contribute to right angle crashes at typical rural intersections, misjudging gaps in traffic is associated with more than two-thirds of these crashes. Transverse rumble strips would not be an effective solution in these cases. Prepared by CH2M HILL, Inc. References 1 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2012. Safety Evaluation of Transverse Rumble Strips on Approaches to Stop-Controlled Intersections in Rural Areas. FHWA-HRT-12-047. http://www.fhwa.dot. gov/publications/research/safety/hsis/12047/index.cfm. Accessed June 2017. 2 Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2003. Left-Turn and Transverse Rumble Strip Treatments for Rural Intersections. FHWA/TX-04/0-4278-2. https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-4278-2.pdf. Accessed June 2017. 3 Preston, H. 2003. Reducing Crashes at Rural Thru-Stop Controlled Intersections. Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium, Ames, IA. https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=665430. Accessed June 2017. 4 Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). 2006. Stopping Behavior at Real-World Stop-Controlled Intersections with and without Transverse Rumble Strips. MN/RC-2006-42. https://www.lrrb.org/pdf/200642.pdf. Accessed June 2017. 5 Carstens, R.L. 1982. Warrants for Rumble Strips on Rural Highways. ISU-ERI-Ames-83002. http://publications.iowa.gov/17338/1/IADOT_hr235_Warrants_Rumble_Strips_Rural_Hwys_1982.pdf. Accessed June 2017. 6 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/crf/resources/. Modified October 2014. Accessed June 2017. What are the most suitable situations for transverse rumble strips? Due to both the inconsistent documented effectiveness and the low density of severe crashes at rural through-stop intersections, installing transverse rumble strips reactively in response to a severe crash is likely the least effective approach. Instead, a potentially more effective approach would involve installing them at intersections identified as high- risk based on the presence of certain roadway and traffic characteristics, including: • Intersections with visual obstructions caused by man-made structures (especially commercial landscape), road geometry (curves), and topography (hills) • Approaches to intersections along roadways that rarely have a STOP sign (more than five miles from the last STOP sign) • Intersections with history of unintentional run the STOP crashes (more than one in a five year period) Are there additional considerations for transverse rumble strips? A disadvantage of traditionally-cut transverse rumble strips is that noise may affect nearby residents. The noise impact of their implementation near residential areas should be evaluated before installation. Also, rumble strips gradually lose their effectiveness due to wear and should be monitored and maintained in order to provide original levels of noise and vibration. END Cost Per Intersection: $2,000 - $3,000 Includes a two-leg approach stop to the intersection. The cost primarily involves operating the machinery to cutting the grooves into the pavement. In order to continue providing original level of noise and vibrations, grooves need to be re-cut every 3 to 6 years (more frequently on roads with higher traffic volumes and pavement wear). What is the transverse rumble strip design? Typical designs of transverse rumble strips are either across the lane or exclusively in the main wheel path. Most commonly, this warning device is placed in route to an approaching intersection with a STOP sign along rural roadways. Installation of transverse rumble strips neither improves nor diminishes the operational performance of rural intersections; but acts as a warning device intended to alert the driver of an upcoming change in driving conditions. Safety PlanCOUNTY ROADWAY Toward ZERO Deaths JUNE 2017 Transverse Rumble Strips TZD’S STATEWIDE GOAL: Fewer than 300 fatalities and 850 serious injuries on Minnesota’s roads by 2020 TOWARD ZERO DEATHS 9/2016 MINNESOTA WHAT IS THE MINNESOTA TOWARD ZERO DEATHS PROGRAM? Minnesota TZD is the state’s cornerstone traffic safety program that employs an interdisciplinary approach to reducing traffic crashes, injuries, and deaths on Minnesota roads. The program’s vision is to reduce fatalities and serious injuries to zero. The program is a partnership between the Minnesota Departments of Public Safety, Transportation, and Health; the University of Minnesota; and other stakeholders. Minnesota TZD works to create a culture in which traffic deaths and serious injuries are no longer acceptable through the integrated application of the “4Es”: Education, Enforcement, Engineering, and Emergency Medical and Trauma Services. The program also uses data to target areas for improvement, employ proven countermeasures, implement best practices, and advance innovations and new technologies. Key accomplishments • A 37 percent reduction in the number of traffic deaths since TZD was launched in 2003. • An updated Strategic Highway Safety Plan in 2014 and implementation of safety plans for each county and MnDOT district. • A statewide seat belt use rate of 93 percent. • A new electronic crash report interface for law enforcement, which has logged more than 20,000 crashes since its launch in early 2016. • Passage of stronger traffic safety policies related to seat belt use, texting while driving, ignition interlock, graduated driving licensing, impaired driving, and speeding in work zones. • Eight regional partnerships statewide that collaborate and build local relationships to implement TZD. • Expansion of the statewide trauma system—now at 129 hospitals. • Implementation of low-cost, high-benefit strategies for intersection and lane-departure crashes on state and local roads. • More than 900 statewide conference participants annually. Education Giving drivers the knowledge they need to avoid hazardous driving practices and choose responsible behavior. Enforcement Ensuring compliance with traffic laws to change driver behavior and reduce unsafe driving practices. Edu c a t i onEmergenc y Services Enforce ment Engin e e r i ngEngineering Changing the roadway—including cable median barriers, signage, and the roadside—to make travel safer. Emergency Medical & Trauma Services Providing fast, efficient emergency medical and trauma services to reduce fatalities and serious injuries whenever a crash does occur. www.MinnesotaTZD.org In 2003, 655 traffic deaths occurred on Minnesota’s roads. That same year, the statewide TZD program was launched as a deliberate, interdisciplinary approach to traffic safety. Despite increases in the number of licensed drivers, registered motor vehicles, and vehicle miles traveled, there were 411 traffic deaths in Minnesota in 2015—a 37 percent reduction from 2003. Traffic safety is everyone's responsibility: Get involved! • Contact your regional TZD coordinator and/or participate in a local TZD safety coalition (minnesotatzd.org/initiatives/regions). • Attend the annual statewide TZD conference and/or regional workshops (minnesotatzd.org/events). • Attend the TZD stakeholder breakfasts in person or participate online (minnesotatzd.org/events/breakfasts). • Request to be added to the TZD mailing list: kkirk@umn.edu. For more information • Contact Kaydee Kirk, Program Coordinator, 612-626-5854, kkirk@umn.edu • Contact Kristine Hernandez, Statewide TZD Program Coordinator, 507-286-7601, kristine.hernandez@state.mn.us • Visit the TZD website: MinnesotaTZD.org Program goals • Pursue widespread public support of traffic safety • Strengthen TZD as a priority for all units of government and traffic safety partnerships • Promote and implement effective traffic safety initiatives Planning DDSA predictive and systemic tools can be applied early in the process, to help identify which roadways aren’t performing as they should, determine the scope and need of potential projects, and prioritize them. Alternatives Analysis DDSA tools can predict the number and severity of crashes for multiple design options at once, and then compare them side-by-side. Design DDSA can be used to determine optimal design criteria, considering both safety and cost. This can include evaluating design exceptions or incorporating performance-based practical design. Construction, Operations & Maintenance Now that your agency has confidence in their investment decision, the project can be built. After construction, DDSA tools can be used to help monitor how the project is operating, comparing safety performance to what was predicted and refining the tools for next time. The tools can then be used to identify future maintenance needs. Use Data. Target Investments. Save Lives. Are you making the best transportation investments? With Data-Driven Safety Analysis, you can. DDSA is the application of the latest software tools and methods for analyzing crash and roadway data. The tools quantify the expected safety impact of each decision in the project development process, so you can make more informed decisions. This lets you optimize investments. The result is fewer serious and fatal crashes. Modern Roundabout xx xx xx xx For more information visit www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc-3/ddsa.cfm OTTER TAIL COUNTY VETERAN’S SERVICE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION WWW.CO.OTTER-TAIL.MN.US SOUTH COURT BUILDING 505 SOUTH COURT STREET, SUITE 2 218-998-8605 FERGUS FALLS, MN 56537 FAX: 218-998-8610 OTTER TAIL COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER FY 2016 Veterans Administration Geographic Distribution of Expenditures Otter Tail County (Expenditures in $000.00) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Veteran Population 5342 5207 5375 5246 4985 Total Expenditures $30,826 $36,995 $39,617 $41,899 $43,709 Compensation & Pension $15,420 $17,701 $20,404 $19,405 $20,825 Education/Vocational $907 $905 $900 $915 $793 Rehabilitation Insurance and Indemnities $314 $564 $498 $204 $400 VA Medical Care $14,760 $17,784 $17,816 $21,372 $21,690 (VA Medical Care: Does not include cost free hearing aids and batteries, extensive prosthetic equipment and adaptable housing construction costs, co-pay free medications for service connected disabilities and VA Pensioners) Otter Tail County ranks 11th in the State in veteran population 10th in Federal Expenditures considering; 6 metro area counties Otter Tail County ranks 5th in outstate veteran population and Federal Expenditures. CY 2017 Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs ~ State Soldiers Assistance Program (SSAP) Dental – Optical – Special Needs Grants for Veterans – Dependents – Survivors & Subsistence Benefits for Disabled Veterans SSAP 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 As of: 10/2/2017 $48,173 $51,570 $96,649.00 $118,586.92 $94,012.37 $64,494.99 Surrounding Counties Veteran Population 2015 Expenditures $000.00 SSAP Veteran Population 2016 Expenditures ($000.00) SSAP 10/2/17 Becker: 2919 $23,148 $32,039.17 3058 $21,976 $41,642.21 Grant: 470 $4,655 $5014.00 508 $4,566 $0.00 Wilkin: 462 $3,435 $1084.00 459 $3,766 $0.00 Wadena: 1183 $15,736 $22,489.82 1225 $16,245 $23,240.40 Douglas: 3196 $25,818 $30,506.00 3095 $27,505 $48,363.45 As of 10/2/17 Otter Tail County has moved to 7th in the State, 5th in outstate Minnesota for Dental, Optical & Special Needs Grants Respectfully submitted by; Charles Kampa, Veterans Service Officer Tuesday, October 10, 2017 Agenda Items Non-Consent Items Motion by second by and unanimously carried, to approve payment in the amount of $1,907.16 for costs incurred under the provisions of Minnesota Statute 609.35 as those cost relate to Case No. 17026512. Amended Property Owners’ Report – Ditch 8 (Presentation) Amended Property Owners’ Report – Ditch 29 (Presentation)