Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br /> OPTION 3: MnDOT rebuilds bridge in FY 2015. <br /> PROS CONS <br /> New bridge with a multi use pathway and The City must wait until FY 2015. <br /> upgraded entrance/exit ramps <br /> Pathway on bridge will meet current pathway The City will likely incur some costs for <br /> design standards. approach work and trail construction costs on <br /> either side of the bridge. <br /> OPTION 4: City/County work cooperatively to advance construct the bridge as early <br /> as 2012 or 2013. <br /> PROS CONS <br /> New bridge with a multi use pathway and City/County must front the money for the <br /> upgraded entrance/exit ramps project. <br /> Pathway on bridge will meet current pathway The City/County must wait for Mn/DOT <br /> design standards. reimbursement. <br /> If the City is successful in its STP application, a <br /> modification to the application could be <br /> requested to apply the funds to an attached <br /> bridge versus a standalone bridge. <br /> Construction will become more definite with <br /> local(City/County) support and contributions to <br /> the project. <br /> Mn/DOT representative Marc Goess will be present at the City Council meeting to answer <br /> questions. <br /> Council Action Requested <br /> Motion to withdraw the City's application from the Municipal Agreement Program and <br /> direct staff to continue to work with Mn/DOT to pursue a bridge improvement project that <br /> includes pedestrian accomodations. <br /> \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\PR&PW\Parks\Memos\Council Memos\011110 Municipal Agreement Update.doc <br />