2020_0427_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment A EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of th 2 Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the 10 day of January, 2022, at 3 6:00 p.m. 4 The following members were present: ; and the following were absent: . 5 Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 6 RESOLUTION No. 7 RESOLUTION APPROVING MnDOT AGREEMENT NO. 1048647 8 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation is reconstructing the traffic control 9 signal and associated work upon, along, and adjacent to TH 36 westbound ramps at Hamline 10 Avenue within Roseville Corporate City limits under State Project No. 6212-194; and 11 WHEREAS, elements of this project impact City of Roseville infrastructure and construct new 12 components of City infrastructure; and 13 WHEREAS, the project will be funded with City of Roseville, Ramsey County and State funds; 14 and 15 WHEREAS, it is necessary to enter into an agreement to provide for payment by the City to the 16 State of the City’s share of the project costs and long-term maintenance responsibilities of all 17 parties on State Project No. 6212-194. 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Roseville enter 19 into MnDOT Agreement No. 1048647 with the State of Minnesota, Department of 20 Transportation. 21 To provide for payment by the City to the State of the City's share of the costs of the signal 22 system construction and other associated construction to be performed upon, along, and 23 adjacent to TH 36 westbound ramps at Hamline Avenue within the corporate City limits under 24 State Project No. 6212-194. 25 AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to 26 execute the Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement. 27 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember 28 and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: ; and the following 29 voted against the same: .