The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7C, County Road E/T.H. 51 Bridge� �;.� EN HILLS = i Re uest for Council Ac i n= q to � ... ...�_�......r_...�._��.�........_...�..._�._�..� ..............:��...._.,,...........�.�..�...r._..�..�.....��..__..��M......_._.._.....�.........�._.m..._............�__�_�.��.......�._.�.�.._..._..�........._.�.....r........�__��_.�....��_._.....�.._...�....�.. ._ Prepared By: Kris Giga, Civil Engineer ` � Michelle Olson � Council Meeting Date: January 11, 2010 Parks and Recreation Manager ? County Road E/T.H. 51 Bridge- Municipal Agreement Update. Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: NA NA NA Recommendation: 1. Motion to withdraw the City's application from the Municipal Agreement Program and direct staff to continue to work with Mn/DOT to pursue a bridge improvement proj ect that includes pedestrian accommodations. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................�---------............,.__.._.---.__.._.__.._..___.___...------..-----......................______.__..._.-----.....__.._.............,........_._........_......_................__---_-_--.--......_,....-.-_ - - . .. ............................................................. Supportin� Documents: 1. Memo from City staff dated January 11, 2010. _ _ _ _. _ _ �.� EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE : January 11, 2010 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Sue Iverson, Acting City Administrator FROM: Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer Michelle Olson, Parks and Recreation Manager SUBJECT: County Road E/TH 51 Bridge- Municipal Agreement Program Update Back�round At the August 31, 2009 Regular City Council Meeting, staff received direction from the City Council to prepare an application for funding through Mn/DOT's 2009 Municipal Agreement Program for modifications to the existing County Road E bridge over Snelling Avenue (TH51). The Municipal Agreement Program Application was submitted on September 28, 2009. Staff received comments on this application on December 15, 2009. The comments received identified that Mn/DOT is considering this bridge for an improvement project in FY 2015. Because the bridge is considered functionally obsolete, which means the geometric layout does not meet current standards, this bridge would be reconstructed. City staff and Kimley-Horn representatives met with Mn/DOT on December 29, 2009 to discuss the comments and options on moving forward with improvements to this bridge. This bridge had not been programmed or identified for replacement in the next five to ten years. However, the City's continued efforts in seeking assistance to improve the existing conditions of the bridge have highlighted the existing bridge deficiencies, causing the Mn/DOT bridge maintenance office to move up improvements to this bridge to FY 2015. The comments received from Mn/DOT bridge maintenance staff indicated that the scope of our proj ect would need to be modi� ed due to the condition of the existing concrete. These modifications anticipate the need for additional deck repairs once the bridge overlay is removed. In 1993, when Mn/DOT placed the current overlay, they encountered some deck deterioration. At that time, they decided not to make repairs to the structural bridge deck and simply cover the deck with an overlay. The scope of our current proj ect anticipated doing the same, removing the overlay and replacing it with modifications to the sidewalks. Mn/DOT recommends the City add the repair of the structural deck to our proj ect. This would include adding quantities for partial and full deck thickness repair in the event that we encounter deteriorated areas once the current overlay is removed. I IMetro-inet. us l ardenhills IPR�PW1Parks IMemos I Council Memos 1011110 Municipal Ag�eement Update. doc � In 1993, approximately 1 S percent of the structural deck area was deteriorated. That area of deterioration has likely increased since 1993, however it is very difficult to diagnose the amount of deck repairs that are necessary until the current overlay is removed. Adding these deck repairs to the proposed improvements, would increase the overall cost of the proj ect around $100,000. Since the potential redeck of the bridge could trigger other necessary repairs, the City could be liable for additional repair costs that are not included in the municipal agreement funding. Mn/DOT representatives present at the December 29, 2009 meeting stated that the City's proposed improvements to the existing bridge would delay any upcoming bridge improvement proj ects to an undetermined date in the future. Discussion Staff has identified the following options for the City Council's consideration about future improvements to the County Road E bridge over T.H. 51. Staff is requesting action on Option 1 only. OPTION 1: Continue to pursue the Municipal Agreement by adjusting the scope of the project in response to the comments provided by Mn/DOT. PROS CONS The proj ect could take place in 2010 (State FY When the improvements take place, if other 2011). deficiencies are identified, the City will be liable for the additional costs. The money awarded through this agreement does not include approach sidewalks or an attached sidewalk from Snelling Avenue. The sidewalk will be a substandard design (5 feet) and will not meet multi-use trail design standards . This is a temporary fix that will delay future replacement of the bridge. OPTION 2: Pursue the stand alone bridge option if the STP Federal Application is successful. (Met Council will be meeting February 17, 2010 to determine which proj ects will receive funding.) PROS CONS Could be constructed in 2012 (Federal FY 2013) The City must wait until 2012. Meets all shared use pathway standards. Local costs- federal grants have a 20% local match funding requirement Will not affect future plans for bridge The City will be responsible for the maintenance replacement. and upkeep of a stand-alone bridge. Includes connecting path to Snelling Avenue. - I IMet�o-inet. us l ardenhills IPR�PWIParks IMemos I Council Memos 1011110 Municipal Agreement Update. doc OPTION 3: MnDOT rebuilds bridge in FY 2015. PROS CONS New bridge with a multi use pathway and The City must wait until FY 2015. upgraded entrance/exit ramps Pathway on bridge will meet current pathway The City will likely incur some costs for design standards. approach work and trail construction costs on either side of the bridge. OPTION 4: City/ County work cooperatively to advance construct the bridge as early as 2012 or 2013. PROS CONS New bridge with a multi use pathway and City/ County must front the money for the upgraded entrance/exit ramps proj ect. Pathway on bridge will meet current pathway The City/ County must wait for Mn/DOT design standards. reimbursement. If the City is successful in its STP application, a modification to the application could be requested to apply the funds to an attached bridge versus a standalone bridge. Construction will become more definite with local (City/County) support and contributions to the proj ect. Mn/DOT representative Marc Goess will be present at the City Council meeting to answer questlons. Council Action Requested Motion to withdraw the City's application from the Municipal Agreement Program and dlrect staff to continue to work with Mn/DOT to pursue a bridge improvement proj ect that lncludes pedestrian accomodations. I IMet�o-inet. us l ardenhills IPR�PWIParks IMemos I Council Memos 1011110 Municipal Agreement Update. doc