Laserfiche WebLink
MEMO ciA, <br /> 0: City Council, Clerk Administrator <br /> rom: Duane McCarty, Mayorailda4/dd ..\4114.4d <br /> illit' <br /> Subject: Pedestrian Bridge Process <br /> Date: February 10, 1997 <br /> Concerns, regarding the pedestrian bridge project at Long Lake Road and Highway 10, have been identified <br /> by Staff via a memorandum (report) dated February 6, 1997. This report is helpful in identifying key issues <br /> regarding process and cost of the project. I am submitting the following thoughts on the bridge for <br /> discussion purposes. <br /> Public Notice and Participation. <br /> 1. Please provide me with written records of pedestrian bridge hearings, including recorded public testimony, <br /> held prior to the adoption of Resolution 4843. <br /> 2. Describe the "scope" of meetings on this project before the Council decision to build was made. <br /> 3. Were there any other meetings held by special purpose committees in addition to the Trailways Advocacy <br /> Group (established under Resolution No. 4227) under open meeting notices posted at city hall? <br /> 4. Were any of the "pre-decision" pedestrian bridge meetings noticed as broad based public hearings, in <br /> keeping with the spirit and intent of Charter Section 8.04 Subd. 2, including substantial notification in <br /> .41ublications such as the official newspaper or city newsletter? <br /> jected Costs. <br /> 1: On page 3 of the report, ..."total costs are now approximately$750,000 based on the information known <br /> at this time." This amount represents an increase of 25% over the ori al$600,000 <br /> estimate for the <br /> Is this considered a reasonable cost over-run,in keeping with the spirit d intent of Charter Section 8 04ct. <br /> Subd. 3? <br /> 2. Support an argument that recently discovered additional costs, for utility modifications and <br /> undergrounding and traffic signal modifications, would benefit the Highway 10 corridor as well as the <br /> bridge: Can it be established that such improvements are in demand for the corridor without the pedestrian. <br /> bridge project? (But For Test to use TIF funds) <br /> 3. $25,000 was transferred from the Street Light Fund to the pedestrian bridge project. Is this transfer in <br /> accordance with the intent of Municipal Code Section 904 and the reasons given to adopt a street light fund <br /> with related charges assessed to resident's utility bills? <br /> 4. $82,642.000 was transferred from the Franchise Fee Fund to the pedestrian bridge project. Is this <br /> transfer in accordance with the intent of Municipal Code Sections 1402 and the reasons given to adopt a <br /> Franchise Fee Fund with related charges assessed to resident's NSP bills? <br /> 5. The report lists construction cost estimates only. What were the costs for preliminary engineering studies <br /> to determine pedestrian bridge effectiveness on open access highways, needs assessments, demographics etc. <br /> 4,0 <br /> escribe any alternatives to a pedestrian bridge that were considered eg intersection traffic control <br /> ovements. <br /> ATTACIIENT 1 <br />