04-26-09-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—May 26, 2009 15 bridge on County Road E over Trunk Highway 5 1. City Staff has been working with Mn/DOT to determine what improvements, if any, they would support on the existing bridge to improve safety (Alternative 1). Another alternative under consideration is the construction of a standalone pedestrian bridge north of the existing bridge (Alternative 2). At the May 18 Work Session the City Council asked for additional information relating to the project. She provided the additional information on the lifespan of a standalone pathway bridge, maintenance costs of a standalone bridge, fencing requirements, Mn/Dot's requirement to accommodate pedestrians on a future bridge at County Road E if a standalone pathway bridge exists, and if a variance could be requested for the 5 foot sidewalk on the existing bridge (Alternative 1) from Mn/DOT. She also reviewed the financial implications and funding sources for each of the alternatives. Councilmember Holden stated that the Council was not decided between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 and at this time they would like to have the Federal Funding application be prepared for Alternative 2. She asked for clarification on what costs would be incurred in the short term. Civil Engineer Giga stated that in the short term the costs for the Federal Funding application preparation and project management and coordination costs would be incurred. Councilmember Holden asked to clarify that since the City was not sure what was happening with Mn/DOT and their time frame the contract would need to come back to the Council if they wanted to move forward with Alternative 1. Civil Engineer Giga stated that Staff would not move forward with final design for Alternative 2 until Council was certain that this was the alternative they wished to move forward with. Councilmember Holden asked why the Council was not being asked to approve some funds for Kimley-Horn to start working on Alternative 1 in addition to Alternative 2. Civil Engineer Giga stated that for either alternative there will be project management or coordination required. At this time the funds being expended would be the same regardless of which alternative the Council would like to move forward with. Councilmember Holden asked why the Council was not authorizing the expenditures for Alternative 1 as well as Alternative 2.