Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />DECEMBER 27, 2012 <br />in a year or two there will be concerns that may need to be <br />addressed, and he was not sure how that will work. McGraw <br />asked who will have the final say if an entity does not agree with a <br />proposed resolution to an issue. How will conflict be resolved? <br />Norris replied that MN DOT is required to develop a traffic <br />management plan, and that plan will spell out mitigation that must <br />occur based on triggering thresholds. This traffic management <br />plan will be a living document, in that it will change as the project <br />progresses through its phases. <br />Tolaas pointed out the traffic management plan will try to make <br />sure the system works and that businesses do not suffer. He noted <br />that there are systems in place where MN DOT will have to <br />allocate some of their gas tax dollars for detours. <br />The City Administrator asked how likely it will be that Items K, <br />L, and M are addressed. He pointed out the need to ensure that <br />pavement conditions along alternate routes are acceptable during <br />the project and should not be addressed after the project is <br />completed. Blesener agreed, noting that project completion is <br />likely 2017 and the impacts will occur beginning in 2013. <br />Tolaas stated that he was not sure that the Rice Street Phase II <br />pavement area could be kept together without some surfacing. He <br />indicated, however, that the extent of the surfacing that will be <br />needed is not known at this time. The Administrator felt that there <br />should be some clear expectations on the front end. <br />McGraw asked if putting a I '/ inch mill and overlay on Rice <br />Street Phase II would push the County's reconstruction project <br />back. Tolaas replied that it could as the County will not want to <br />throw away part of the investment. <br />Tolaas stated that the County and MN DOT are aware that it owes <br />the local municipalities a driveable surface on road that are being <br />impacted by projects of this nature. He pointed out, however, that <br />various funding sources are governed by differing sets of rules. <br />Tolaas also pointed out that traffic impacts will change over the <br />course of the project as different ramps are being closed. <br />The City Administrator asked if items L and M were likely to <br />happen. Tolaas reported that the Little Canada Road bridge is <br />wide enough for turn lanes. He indicated that the issue is the <br />pedestrian ramps, and suggested that MN DOT may feel it prudent <br />to make pedestrian - friendly improvements. Norris noted the issue <br />8 <br />