Laserfiche WebLink
Item No. 7K <br />Meeting Date: June 9, 2008 <br />Type of Business: CB <br />WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; <br />CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business <br />City Administrator Review _______ <br />City of Mounds View Staff Report <br />To:Honorable Mayor and City Council <br />From:Joe Rhein, Consulting Engineer <br />Item Title/Subject:County Road 10 Trailway Project: Segments 1- 5: <br />Resolution 7279 Approving the Feasibility Report, <br />Ordering the Project with Revised Scope, and <br />Authorizing Plans and Specifications <br />Background: <br />On January 9, 2006 the City Council approved Resolution 6716 authorizing the <br />preparation of a preliminary feasibility report and consultant selection for the <br />County Road 10 Trailway, Lighting, and Landscape Project. At that time, the City <br />Council gave direction that the City should proceed with two segments of trailway <br />along the County Road 10 corridor: 1.) The segments on the north side between <br />County Road H and Red Oak Drive (Silver Lake Road): Segments 1-5 and; 2.) <br />the segments on the south side between Long Lake Road and Silver Lake Road: <br />Segments 9 & 10. <br />On August 28, 2006 the City Council approved Resolution 6930 authorizing the <br />preliminary design of landscape architecture elements along the County Road 10 <br />Trailway Corridor. <br />During the remainder of 2006 and 2007, the project for Trail Segments 9 & 10 <br />was implemented, with construction essentially now complete. <br />During 2007, the Feasibility Report for Trails 1 – 5 was developed in anticipation <br />of 2008 construction. The completed Report included the landscape architectural <br />elements identified in the preliminary landscape architecture design. A copy of <br />the Executive Summary from the completed Feasibility Report is included with <br />this Staff Report for reference. <br />On November 13, 2007 the City Council reviewed the Feasibility Report for the <br />County Road 10 Trailway Project: Segments 1-5 and held a Public Hearing on <br />the project. The City Council chose not to proceed with the project at that time <br />for two primary reasons. The first was the increased project cost relative to the <br />estimated project cost included in the City Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).