My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-21-2015 City Council Minutes
Laserfiche
>
City Council (Permanent)
>
Minutes
>
2015
>
04-21-2015 City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2015 3:08:56 PM
Creation date
5/13/2015 3:08:56 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council Minutes <br /> April 21, 2015 <br /> Page 4 of 6 <br /> interchange and now those predictions show a 30%-40% increase by <br /> 2030 (5,000-6,000 cars). <br /> Council Member Akerson questioned if the interchange cost is the City's <br /> responsibility. Tim Bray stated that the County is adamant about their <br /> interchange policy and the cost sharing with the City. He noted that the <br /> basis for this firm stance is because of the decision by the City for the <br /> alternate route. Mr. Bray reiterated that the cost sharing breakdown is for <br /> MnDOT to pay 70% and the County to pay 30%. Of the County's 30%, <br /> the City's portion of this would be $558,000 which equates to 9% of the <br /> total interchange cost. Council Member Pederson asked if the cost <br /> participation breakdown would be the same with traffic signals and when <br /> did the State decide on the interchange versus the traffic signals. Mr. <br /> Bray noted that when project development occurred the impression was <br /> that the interchange would take place someday. The interchange was <br /> officially added last year and MnDOT agreed that it would be part of the <br /> project. Council Member Pederson stated that the interchange cost was <br /> sticker shock and now the City Council must decide on the long term <br /> financial effects. <br /> Mayor Sjoblad questioned if a public works truck, salt shed, and garage <br /> addition is included in the County's construction cost numbers. Rob Hall <br /> noted that these costs are not included. MnDOT won't provide for this and <br /> the County was conservative in their construction cost estimates which do <br /> include construction, engineering, inflation, and contingencies. <br /> Council Member Pederson noted that to get a true picture of the financial <br /> impact to the City, the operating costs need to be added to the <br /> construction costs and the City's has no ability to collect transportation <br /> State aid. The City's revenue stream is from one source which is property <br /> tax levies and he considers streets as both assets and long-term liabilities. <br /> He further noted that an objective of the City's comp plan is to reduce the <br /> tax burden in the City. According to the comp plan, the City should <br /> analyze the financial return versus the financial obligation to justify <br /> infrastructure projects. <br /> Council Member Pederson questioned if the Highway 371 turnback does <br /> not occur will the County not maintain this road. Tim Bray clarified that <br /> general maintenance will occur. He explained that the County will not be <br /> punitive to the City if this turnback does not occur. That is not the <br /> County's intention. Highway 371 will be treated as a part of the County's <br /> transportation system and its service life needs to be met before <br /> replacement would occur. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.