Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION - DECEMBER 20, 1999 3 <br /> . Tolaas did express concerns regarding having three (3) major intersections within such <br /> close proximity. <br /> Mr. Brown also advised the City Council that he had discussed the timing of the Highway <br /> 96 project with Mr. Tolaas, and did not find Mr. Tolaas too receptive to doing Phase II as <br /> a stand-alone project; but wanted to bid and construct the two phases together. Mr. <br /> Tolaas also stated that he was not convinced that this project should have a higher <br /> priority than Ramsey County #49 in Shoreview. <br /> Mayor Probst reiterated that the reason for the "quick fix" overlay of Highway 96 several <br /> years ago was due to construction being imminent. Mayor Probst also stated Phase I was <br /> to act at a catalyst for funding reimbursement by Ramsey County to the City for the <br /> signal at West Round Lake Road and Highway 96. Mayor Probst exprcssed his concern <br /> that, with continued delays, Ramsey County would expend all the turnback monies <br /> elsewhere, not allowing for those funds to be used in Arden Hills. <br /> It was the consensus of Councilmembers that staff and Mr. Brown continue to pursue this <br /> design concept with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and report <br /> back at the January Work session, prior to the City Council taking formal action to <br /> approve the final design. <br /> d. Old Highwav 10 Watermain Petition <br /> . Mr. Stafford reviewed the background of a petition request for water main on a section of <br /> Old Highway 10, and the responses received from affected residents. <br /> Mr. Stafford provided four options for the City Council's consideration: <br /> 1. Proceed with the projcct following the necessary steps and see how bids come <br /> out; <br /> 2. Consider funding a portion of the project and continue moving forward with it; <br /> 3. Place the project on hold while other funding sources are explored; <br /> 4. Elect not to proceed with the project at this time due to high resident costs and <br /> resident opposition to those costs. <br /> Discussion included the possibility of the City underwriting a portion of the project (i.e., <br /> 50%); potential application for a Ramsey County grant, based on income guidelines, for <br /> additional funding for the project; and the portion of the project that was restoration. <br /> Staff was directed to seek income information from affected residents to determine if an <br /> application for Community Development Block Grant funds were applicablc to pursue, <br /> prior to giving further consideration to the project. <br /> Later that evening, one of the property owners returned to the meeting and requested an <br /> . audience with the Council to speak in favor of the project. Mr. Cmiel, who owns three <br /> (3) vacant lots for potential development, represented himself as the designated <br /> ----- <br />