My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-30-08-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
06-30-08-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/8/2012 5:06:45 PM
Creation date
7/29/2008 12:44:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Document
06-30-08 Regular City Council Minutes
General - Type
Minutes
Date
6/30/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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 />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - June 30, 2008 <br /> <br />26 <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated that he would favor of something with stronger <br />wording. <br /> <br />Mayor Harpstead stated the potential wording as: Whereas the costs saved by the <br />State of Minnesota by Trunk Highway 1 0 reducing the traffic volume impacts on <br />the Interstate 694 and Interstate 35W interchange the City requires the State or <br />Mn/DOT to initiate and support all appropriate avenues of noise abatement funding <br />in areas designated by the City on Trunk Highway 10. <br /> <br />Mr. Chromy suggested changing the word support to secure. <br /> <br />Mayor Harpstead restated the potential wording as: Whereas the costs saved by <br />the State of Minnesota by Trunk Highway 1 0 reducing the traffic volume impacts <br />on the Interstate 694 and Interstate 35W interchange the City requires the State or <br />Mn/DOT to initiate and secure all appropriate avenues of noise abatement funding <br />in areas designated by the City on Trunk Highway 10. <br /> <br />Ms. Stacie Kvilvang of Ehlers & Associates clarified that the City was requiring <br />the State to secure the funding for the noise abatement and if they don't then the <br />City will not support the project. She stated that this would hamper the ability to <br />move forward in preliminary design because the State is not in legislative session at <br />this time and preliminary design would not be able to move forward in order to get <br />the answers about what the impacts are going to be. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden stated that even though the State was not in legislative <br />session Mn/DOT could be contacting people and working on drafting documents <br />and they could start on preliminary design and by the time that is done the funding <br />would be addressed. <br /> <br />Ms. Kvilvang stated that the developer may not wish to spend the money to move <br />to preliminary design if the City was still not sure they would be approving the <br />project because there was no guarantee that funding for noise abatement would be <br />secured. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung clarified that the only way this was going to move <br />forward is if the developer fronts the money for the preliminary design and they are <br />guaranteed that they will get something. <br /> <br />Ms. Kvilvang asked why the City would move into preliminary design if the State <br />does not provide the noise abatement funding and the City does not approve the <br />project. She stated that there were avenues that could be pursued to see if the City <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.