04/08/1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 11, 1996 Municipal State Aid System are designated mileage above the 20% limit on mileage available to be on the Municipal State Aid System The ability for the City to have more than the normal 20% limit designated as MSA does provide for some compensation to the City for receiving this roadway. Issues regarding the turnback proposal include the appropriateness of this segment of Highway 49 as a State roadway. Fourth Avenue, both north and south of the turnback segment, are City MSA roads. If the County and the State execute the turnback of the remaining portion of Highway 49, the segment that is proposed to be a City turnback would be an "orphaned" segment of State Highway. Staff is recommending that the MOU be adopted by the City Council. Mr. Ahrens introduced Mr. Robert Brown, Metro Division State Aid Engineer and explained that he would answer questions from the City Council. Council Member Kuether asked why MnDOT wants the County and the City to take over Highway 49 and what would the benefits be. Mr. Brown explained that MnDOT is in the process of a statewide venture to turnback roads that are not part of the interstate roadway system. It has always been the intent for MnDOT to keep jurisdiction of roadways of major significance statewide. Prior to the construction of the interstate systems, roadways that are now being turned back were important roadways of the region. As the interstate systems became operational, these roadways became secondary roadways or even city streets. Mr. Brown explained that MnDOT developed funding, standards and a way of doing business that was appropriate for interstate and large highways dealing with large amounts of traffic. During the past 10 to 15 years, it has become apparent that the MnDOT program does not always fit very well in many county or community settings. The turnback program was established by MnDOT which identified the roadways to be turned back and what needs to be done to the roadway in the form of preservation or overlay before the roadway was actually turned back to the county or municipality. Mr. Brown noted that sometimes the need for capital improvements to a roadway becomes an issue for secondary and smaller roadways. He explained that the improvement that is required by MnDOT standards is not always the right thing to do for smaller roadways. The focus is to get roadways of particular functional classifications or particular usage into the proper level of government. MnDOT intends to stand behind interstate highways, interchanges and freeways and at the same time does not plan to dump older, smaller highways on other agencies. According to state statute, MnDOT does have the authority to "dump" roadways onto lower jurisdictions. However, from a practical standpoint, MnDOT will not do that. MnDOT will seek to find situations that are "win,win" for everybody. Mr. Brown explained that MnDOT and Ramsey County entered into a MOU whereby Ramsey County determined that it was the best solution for about 71 miles of roadway to become part of the Ramsey County road system. Highway 96 was part of that MOU. Ramsey County felt that these roadways were not getting the level of attention that they PAGE 3