03-30-09-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - March 30, 2009 10 City Engineer Bloom stated that this would not be a problem because the City has a DNR Grant for this project. Councilmember Holmes asked if the project was programmed for 2009. City Engineer Bloom stated that it was not programmed at the state level STIP because the Perry Project is funded through the DNR. City Engineer Bloom explained to the Council that because of the tight deadlines with this solicitation there have been several meetings since the agenda memo was prepared and the details of these meetings have not been included in the Council packet. She reviewed the requirements for eligibility, fundability, and feasibility for the solicitation. Councilmember Holden asked how the CP Rail Bridge project could be included in this list when Mr. Thomas explained to the Council that it could be eight to twelve months before the City would even hear back from the railroad. City Engineer Giga stated that the timing of this funding with the CP Rail Bridge project in relation to tbe required timelines related to the ARRA funds could be a problem. Even though the feasibility report has been completed and Bolton and Menk, Inc. is starting the design process, the problem would be how quick CP Rail would be in responding to the City's requests. The County Road E Bridge Improvements is currently in the RFQ process for a consultant firm to complete the final design. The reason that Staff has not brought back a recommendation for the Council is because Staff has had additional meetings with MnJDOT regarding what the City can and can not do on County Road E with the existing bridge or what the plans are for the future. Staff met with MnJDOT Bridge on Friday as a follow up to the memo from Kimley-Horn, the City's consultant engineer. Kimley Horn had indicated that they could do additional leg work for the City prior to the final design to evaluate the bridge again and see what the conditions of the bridge are today and how that might affect a future project. MnJDOT Bridge indicated that the structural modifications that would happen would trigger the need for improvements on the bridge so that it is not functionally obsolete as it currently is today. The lane widths are narrower than the approach lanes on either side of it. This means that it would result in a bridge widening project and the City would need to meet a minimum standard bf 32 feet aside from any trail or sidewalk. Once this is evaluated then the condition of the existing bridge is considered and if it is worth widening the bridge or constructing a new bridge. City Engineer Bloom asked what the current width of the bridge is.