04/08/1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 11, 1996 Ramsey County, Anoka County and the City of Lino Lakes. Council Member Bergeson said that there is a rumor that Ramsey County will not accept the south end of Highway #49 until the road is brought up to County street standards. Mr. Brown said that is not true. About a year ago MnDOT invited Ramsey County to a meeting and showed Ramsey County what is being planned. Several other meetings with neighborhood groups were held. After a couple of meetings, Ramsey County said that the process was not going as planned. Ramsey County told MnDOT that they could work with the community better than MnDOT and decided to prepare a plan to turnback the portion of Highway #49 in Ramsey County. MnDOT said go ahead and when the roadway gets turned back to Ramsey County, MnDOT will "fix" the road. Mr. Brown again said that some of the MnDOT road standards do not fit well in neighborhoods. Therefore, Ramsey County will prepare a plan for the turnback of Highway #49 and then the road will be upgraded according to the Ramsey County plan. Mr. Brown said that similar action will be taken with Anoka County. When MOU's have been completed with Anoka County and the City of Lino Lakes, the task of preparing the paper trail will begin. Council Member Lyden explained that if the City of Lino Lakes is interested in allowing the turnback of this 0.2 tenths of a mile, is it possible for the City to go forward and with a specific proposal for extending Apollo Drive and MnDOT would fund the extension from their capital program? Mr. Brown said that MnDOT would not need final plans, only a concept plan. He said that moving the entrance to Lilac Street up to a quarter of a mile from the bridge ramp is clearly in the interest of MnDOT. Council Member Kuether asked if the City would have a final written agreement with MnDOT. Mr. Brown said that everything that is contained in the MOU is the basis for a final agreement. He also noted that unless there is funding under Article 3.1, a formal agreement does not need to be developed. The turnback and the agreement for funding the extension of Apollo Drive can be completed according to State Statutes. Mr. Brown restated that MnDOT has authority under State Statute to "dump" that portion of Highway #49 on the City. However, MnDOT will not do this and will make every effort to come to an agreement regarding the turnback. Council Member Kuether referred to page 6 of the MOU noting that there are 14 items that need to be addressed before this portion of Highway #49 is turned over to the City. She asked Mr. Ahrens if all these items should be completed prior to approving the MOU. Mr. Ahrens said that he understood that the MOU would lead into a formal agreement. The formal agreement would define the 14 items on page 6 as well as the percentage of participation by MnDOT. Council Member Kuether said that the Council needs some kind of idea of how many years are left on this portion of Highway #49 before the City would agree to the turnback. She explained that if the City is given money for the extension of Apollo Drive in return for accepting this portion Highway #49, and this portion of Highway #49 requires substantial rebuilding in four (6) to six (6) years, where will the money come from to rebuild the road? Mayor Landers asked if the City was looking at extending Apollo Drive approximately 600 feet? Mr. Ahrens said that the extension would be approximately 400 to 600 feet. He explained that these PAGE 5