02-23-10 PTRC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Parks,Trails&Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes January 12,2010 Page 4 funding leaving the City responsible for approximately$200,000. The City also applied for a Municipal Agreement for modifications to the existing bridge. She indicated MnDOT had concerns with just doing modifications to the bridge and seemed interested in the replacement of the entire bridge in 2015. MnDOT's concerns were that they would recommend a full re-deck versus a mill and overlay—which is what the City had proposed, and the condition of the concrete underneath could trigger more repairs and therefore they would be in favor of recommending replacement of the bridge instead of — modifying the existing one. Chair Peck questioned if the Committee or Council Liaison could exert any influence over that timetable. Ms. Olson felt the reason MnDOT is going ahead with recommending replacement of the bridge, is because of the pressure the City has already put on this issue. Ms. Olson indicated even though the bridge is functionally obsolete, the rating indicates that it is structurally in good shape. Therefore, the City's continued applications for pedestrian improvements seem to have influenced them to push up the replacement of the bridge. Ms. Olson informed the members that at this point the Council had decided not to move forward with the Municipal Agreement because it did not seem MnDOT is in favor of that option. Council decided to either pursue the Standalone Bridge,wait for MnDOT to rebuild the bridge in 2015, or another option that they could consider, but one that would need to be researched is the City and County working in cooperation to advance construct the bridge as early as 2012 or 2013. The State would then reimburse the City in 2015. Ms. Olson indicated MnDOT stated if the City is successful with the STP federal application they could possibly use those funds toward an attached pedestrian walkway versus a stand alone bridge. This would be one advantage to moving forward with the advance construct. Ms. Olson further stated that the City was surprised when they received the response from MnDOT in December since MnDOT had not been supportive with the bridge g rebuild in the past. MnDOT now feels confident they can get this project into the 2015 Maintenance Improvement Program. Chair Peck questioned why there suddenly was such a bigchange on MnDOT'S art. g p Ms. Olson stated it was because the City had been pushing this for some time and because pedestrian improvements are needed on the bridge. Committee Member O'Malley indicated she drove on the bridge the other day and the g Y sidewalk was not even visible and questioned why the sidewalk could not be plowed. Ms. Olson indicated it is likely the bridge is not plowed as often because of the special equipment required to plow the bridge. Discussion ensued on plowing of the bridge.