Laserfiche WebLink
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 proj ect. <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 proj ect. <br />Mn/DOT representative Marc Goess will be present at the City Council meeting to answer <br />questlons. <br />Council Action Requested <br />Motion to withdraw the City's application from the Municipal Agreement Program and <br />dlrect staff to continue to work with Mn/DOT to pursue a bridge improvement proj ect that <br />lncludes pedestrian accomodations. <br />I IMet�o-inet. us l ardenhills IPR�PWIParks IMemos I Council Memos 1011110 Municipal Agreement Update. doc <br />