Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - May 12, 2008 <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />Mr.. Chromy stated that he was not able to comment to what the specifics were for the Federal <br />funding. He also stated he would not necessarily interpret the statement in the same way. Rather <br />that funding was provided to address the project's overall purpose and need. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden asked how Federal funding was received. <br /> <br />Mr. Chromy explained that the Metropolitan Council administers Federal Transportation <br />funding within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Region. Ramsey County would have prepared a <br />proposal for federal funding and submitted it to Met Council for consideration. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung stated that grade separation had been included in the proposal. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden stated that Federal funds were available for County Road 96 but there <br />were no funds available for Highway 10 at this time. She asked what would happen to the access <br />onto Highway 10 if these funds were not made available with the scenario that was being <br />presented. <br /> <br />Mr. Chromy stated that based on discussions with City, County and Mn/DOT staff on April 4, <br />2008, it was the hope that both of these projects could be coordinated together so that access <br />could be maintained through the local access interchange. He also stated that if the local access <br />interchange is not done at the same time then the County would be looking at how they maintain <br />certain movements at County Road 96. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes stated that there were no funds for the Highway 10 flyover just for <br />County Road 96. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung stated that the Highway 10 flyover was the Federal funding that was <br />applied for and received. The Turn-Back fund supplements the gap and continues up to 35W. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated that the City needed to ask the County to provide written <br />documentation for the funding that was received and what the use will be for these funds. He <br />also asked for clarification on the impact of the City either providing or withholding Municipal <br />Consent. <br /> <br />Mr. Chromy restated that if the City were to withhold Municipal Consent for the project, the <br />County and Mn/DOT could consider an appeals process to continue with the project. Municipal <br />Consent provides leverage for the City to maintain their interest in the project, however it does <br />not necessarily provide the City with the power to stop the project. <br /> <br />Mayor Harpstead asked if there was anything in the letter from RalTISey County that stated the <br />County had not heard what the City was asking for in regards to impact on the residents. <br />