My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2015/10/26
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
Agenda Packets - 2015/10/26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:50:44 PM
Creation date
6/19/2018 5:17:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
10/26/2015
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
10/26/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
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
Mounds View City Council August 24, 2015 <br />Regular Meeting Page 4 <br /> <br />mobility across County Road H. She understood the City’s concerns for the local businesses 1 <br />access and discussed the proposed changes to the project that would address these concerns. The 2 <br />cost participation between MnDOT and the County was reviewed and it was noted the City 3 <br />would be responsible for a portion of the pedestrian facility. In addition, the City would pay for 4 <br />the drainage costs based on contributing drainage area. She estimated that the City of Mounds 5 <br />View would contribute $250,000 to the project. The project timeline was reviewed further with 6 <br />the Council. She estimated that construction would begin in March of 2016. 7 <br /> 8 <br />Mayor Flaherty opened the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. 9 <br /> 10 <br />James Wilson, 7025 Pleasant View Drive, asked why the City of Mounds View was having to 11 <br />pay for storm sewer costs given the fact MnDOT typically covers this expense. Ms. Engum 12 <br />responded that MnDOT would be contributing $7 million to the project for the bridge 13 <br />replacement. She explained that due to the TCAAP redevelopment, the bridge would be widened 14 <br />and the project scope was expanded. For this reason, all water runoff would have to be captured 15 <br />and treated. The City would be responsible for this treatment due to the fact the water would run 16 <br />outside of the MnDOT right of way. 17 <br /> 18 <br />Mayor Flaherty understood that the City would be responsible for the water mitigation. He 19 <br />believed that the expense to the City was reasonable. 20 <br /> 21 <br />City Administrator Ericson requested further information on the $250,000 cost estimate from the 22 <br />County. He noted that City staff had estimated the City’s expenses to be closer to $200,000. Ms. 23 <br />Engum explained that the additional $50,000 expense could be attributed to design expenses and 24 <br />construction costs. She reported that these additional costs would be eligible for State Aid 25 <br />reimbursement. 26 <br /> 27 <br />Hearing no further public input, Mayor Flaherty closed the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. 28 <br /> 29 <br />Mayor Flaherty questioned the contribution Arden Hills would be making to the project. Ms. 30 <br />Engum reported that Arden Hills would be making the same contribution to construction and 31 <br />design costs. 32 <br /> 33 <br />Council Member Meehlhause asked if the County was aware of the name change for County 34 <br />Road 10. He encouraged the County to make this name change in conjuction with the County 35 <br />Road H and I-35W project. 36 <br /> 37 <br />Council Member Meehlhause requested comment from the County on if Rice Creek Commons 38 <br />was being put on hold. Ms. Engum discussed the Joint Powers Agreement between the City of 39 <br />Arden Hills and the County. She reported that Arden Hills has approved a Master Plan and 40 <br />Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Rice Creek Commons. Before these documents were 41 <br />approved, the County Commissioners requested that Arden Hills consider the County’s request 42 <br />for more flexibility in the plan, and this was not granted. For this reason, the County Board was 43 <br />now discussing the level of flexibility within the Master Plan. 44 <br /> 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.