05-12-08-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - May 12, 2008 9 CounciJmember Holden suggested that Public Works Director Hoag speak with Commissioner Bennett to receive regular updates. B. Update on Items Related to the Interstate 694t1 Hi2hwav lOti and County Road 96 Preliminarv Desi2n Issues and Position Paper - Ramsev County Response Mr. Chris Chromy, of Bolton & Menk, provided an update on the Highway Project Development Process and Status ofTH10/CR96 Project. He also updated the Council regarding the response from Ramsey County Public Works Director Ken Haider on the Position Paper that was sent by the City. Councilmember Grant clarified that Ramsey County and MnJDOT, not the City, were the jurisdictions responsible for the roadways, as stated in the memo. He asked if these jurisdictions would have the final approval of the construction plans or if the City would have any input and what the results would be if Municipal Consent was not given by the City. He also asked if the grade-separated intersection was excluded from the plans. Mrs Chromy confirmed that Ramsey County and Mn/DOT are the jurisdictional authorities responsible for construction efforts. The City will be asked for input through the preliminary design phase and will be asked to provide Municipal Consent. The need for Municipal Consent provides incentive for the County and State to work through issues with the City during preliminary design.. If the City decides not to provide Municipal Consent, the County and State could request an appeals process to resolve design issues. The appeals process includes a three- person Appeals Board. One person is appointed by the City, one by the State and the City and State need to agree on a third. The decision of the Appeal Board is final. Councilmember Holden asked for clarification regarding Ramsey County's response to the City's Position Paper. Mr. Chromy stated that Ramsey County stated that a response was premature at this time because they were not in the preliminary design phase at this time. He also stated that the Position Paper provided the City's concerns to the County and that those concerns would later be addressed during the preliminary design phase. Councilmember Holmes stated that the City had been told that they would need to provide the parameters in the Position Paper to Ramsey County before they would be able to start the preliminary design phase and now the County was reversing this by stating that they would not look at the Position Paper until they had started the preliminary design phase. She expressed concerns for the inconsistent responses that the City was receiving. Councilmember Grant stated that the first couple of sentences from the Department of Public Works letter states that Ramsey County has received Federal funding for the final phase of the reconstruction project of CSAH 96, which includes the grade separation of the TH 10/CSAH 96 intersection. He asked if this decision was already decided and if the Federal funds were provided to specifically grade separate that intersection.