My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 09-11-2006
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
CCP 09-11-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:21:24 PM
Creation date
11/15/2006 10:09:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
215
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />@) <br /> <br />~ <br />~~!iILLS <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />AGENDA ITEM: 2F <br /> <br />November 9, 2004 <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Mayor and City Council <br />Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator <br /> <br />A;ula/il <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Connty Road E Bridge Enbaneement and Sidewalk Project <br /> <br />In response to Council's request for additional inlonnation, the lollowing have been prepared for <br />your review at the November 15 Work Session: <br /> <br />. Report 11-OIn URS with additional infomlation regarding the costs, pros, and cons of <br />building on the north side of County Road E, along with some other additional updated <br />infonnation; <br />. Repol1 Irom Ramsey County Sheriffs Department regarding accident data for the <br />intersection at County Road E and Connelly. <br />. Repol1 from a URS Traffic Engineer regarding varions safety and traffic engineering <br />Issues. <br /> <br />City Council had requested the first lWG iteITIS listed above. \Vhen \ve requested the data and <br /> <br />analysis from the Sheriffs Department, they mdicated (as is stated in the report) that the data <br />should also be reviewed by a traffic engineer. Therefore, I requested that additional work Irom <br />URS. In addition, I asked that their traffic engineer take a look at the project as a whole, as best <br />as possible with time and information available, so that Council would have the best infonnation <br />available in making a decision. <br /> <br />A few key points should be noted: The application for Cooperative Agreement funding has been <br />submitted. fn the document, it is indicated that the City still needs to makc a linal decision about <br />which side of the bridge to build the sidewalk. The submitted document includes a request for <br />enough funding to build the nOl1h~side option; this amount can be lowered if the City decides to <br />proceed on the south side. MnDOT had requested that we make a final decision regarding north <br />vs. south by the end of November or early December. To meet this timcline the item is planned <br />for the November 29 City Council meeting agenda. <br /> <br />There has becn some confusion due to information reported in a local newspaper article. With <br />regard to MnDOT Cooperative Agrcement lunding thc following should be noted: <br />. MnDOT officials have indicated that they believe the bridge enhancement project will <br />score well for this funding program. While encouraging, this is an indication and not an <br />abso lute. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.