Laserfiche WebLink
City of Mounds View Staff Report <br /> Highway 10 Pedestrian Bridge <br /> February 24, 1997 <br /> III Page 4 <br /> bicycles in the vicinity. Whether the City Council chooses to do so, as opposed to placing lighting <br /> elsewhere with the same funds, is a policy decision. <br /> Franchise Fee: Section 1402.01 Subd. 12 explains how the franchise fee will be levied, but does <br /> not state a specific or limited purpose for the revenue generated. It is staff's understanding that the <br /> franchise fee was established to provide a source of revenue for City expenses other than property <br /> tax. We would conclude that the funds generated by the Franchise Fee may be used for a capital <br /> project such as the pedestrian bridge, but it would be a policy decision to allocate the funds to this <br /> project as opposed to another project. <br /> Costs ofpreliminary engineering: On March 14, 1994,the City Council authorized $1,900 to be <br /> used to prepare a very preliminary, initial design for the bridge to be used as part of the grant <br /> submittal. <br /> Alternatives to bridge: On March 23, 1994, SEH who serves as the City Engineer provided an <br /> analysis of using a tunnel versus the pedestrian bridge to cross Highway 10(see memo included <br /> with staff report dated 3/24/94 in Appendix E). They strongly recommended that a bridge be used <br /> rather than a tunnel, from both a cost and a lighting, security and drainage standpoint. It is our <br /> understanding that tunnels are viewed as presenting more safety problems to users than bridges <br /> because the users are not visible to passersby. We did not find information on whether modifying <br /> le signal timing has been explored, but common wisdom would suggest it is difficult to gain <br /> precedence for pedestrians against a four-lane highway,whether it is part of the State highway <br /> system or not. The sheer width of the highway works against signal timing which would allow <br /> pedestrians to cross in one signal cycle unless they are fleet of foot. <br /> Alternative funding sources: The short answer to this question is yes. A listing of the funding <br /> sources available is detailed in Appendix B. In summary, funds available from sources other than <br /> those already used in budgeting for the bridge would be as follows: <br /> MSA(State Highway Funds) as of 1997,balance in fund is $631,804(1) <br /> Tax Increment Financing as of 1997,balance in Highway 10 fund is $680,775 <br /> Interest Earnings $9,900 (2) <br /> (1) It should be noted that the MSA Account is usually used for street reconstruction projects, and there <br /> are projects which are in the pipeline which may be affected by adding the pedestrian bridge to the <br /> list. Please see Appendix B for more discussion on this point.) The funds from this source could be <br /> used for bridge construction,design and inspection. They probably cannot be used for the drainage <br /> pond improvements,landscaping or lighting. <br /> (2) The 680 Account established to pay the local share for the pedestrian bridge,after transfers were <br /> made following Resolution 4843,has earned about$9,900 in interest. <br /> Additional Information of Project Budget: As is noted earlier, since the City Council meeting on <br /> • February 10, we have met with MnDOT to discuss whether any of the project costs could be <br /> reduced. We also learned that the cost of utility modifications and undergrounding will be paid <br />