CCP 01-31-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e UKAr I ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION - DECEMBER 20, 1999 3 Tolaas did express concerns regarding having three (3) major intersections within such close proximity. Mr. Brown also advised the City Council that he had discussed the timing of the Highway 96 project with Mr. Tolaas, and did not find Mr. Tolaas too receptive to doing Phase II as a stand-alone project; but wanted to bid and construct the two phases together. Mr. Tolaas also stated that he was not convinced that this project should have a higher priority than Ramsey County #49 in Shoreview. Mayor Probst reiterated that the reason for the "quick fix" overlay of Highway 96 several years ago was due to construction being imminent. Mayor Probst also stated Phase I was to act at a catalyst for funding reimbursement by Ramsey County to the City for the signal at West Round Lake Road and Highway 96. Mayor Probst expressed his concern that, with continued delays, Ramsey County would expend all the turnback monies elsewhere, not allowing for those funds to be used in Arden Hills. It was the consensus of Councilmembers that staff and Mr. Brown continue to pursue this design concept with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and report back at the January Worksession, prior to the City Council taking formal action to approve the final design concept for bidding and construction purposes. d. Old Hil!hwav 10 Watermain Petition Mr. Stafford reviewed the background of a petition request for water main on a section of Old Highway 10, and the responses received from affected residents. Mr. Stafford provided four options for the City Council's consideration: I. Proceed with the project following the necessary steps and see how bids come out; 2. Consider funding a portion of the project and continue moving forward with it; 3. Place the project on hold while other funding sources are explored; 4. Elect not to proceed with the project at this time due to high resident costs and resident opposition to those costs. Discussion included the possibility of the City underwriting a portion of the project (i.e., 50%); potential application for a Ramsey County grant, based on income guidelines, for additional funding for the project; and the portion of the project that was restoration. Staff was directed to seeK mcome mtormatlOn !rom affected re,idents1:o-determirn; if an application for Community Development Block Grant funds were applicable to pursue, prior to giving further consideration to the project. Later that evening, one of the property owners returned to the meeting and requested an audience with the Council to speak in favor of the project. Mr. Cmiel, who owns three (3) vacant lots for potential development, represented himself as the designated