Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1t2: Signal at Armstrong Boulevard N.W. and Highway gl0 <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski stated that the intersection of Armstrong Boulevard N.W. and <br />Highway#10 N.W, is scheduled to be signalized in 1996. The signalization is warranted <br />by the accident history from January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1993. (It does not include <br />the recent fatality of this year.) He stated he had spoken with Staff in MnDOT's traffic <br />signal section who have indicated that the current schedule could be expedited by about a <br />year if funding was available. This would require entering into an agreement with <br />MnDOT. IF we wait for the project to run its course, the City's share would be 37 percent <br />of the construction costs of one leg and one-half of the County's leg. If we expedite this <br />project, he proposed the City up-front all costs and get reimbursed in 1996. There could be <br />as much as $25,000 in engineering and overhead costs, which may or may not be <br />reimbursed by MnDOT. The cost of the signal is estimated to be $100,000, but it may be <br />as high as $120,000, because the intention is to use the longer mast arms. He inquired if <br />the Road. and Bridge Committee is interested in him proceeding in discussion with <br />MnDOT. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman inquired if it would be a higher cost if the schedule date is <br />moved up; or with the reimbursement, would the City's expense remain the same. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski replied that the costs would be the same with the reimbursement; however, <br />engineering costs may be more. He stated the City would have to negotiate with MnDOT <br />for reimbursement. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder questioned if it is worth it to expedite this project as 1996 is not all that far <br />away. He stated he has not heard a lot of complaints about the intersection; however, there <br />have been a number of accidents. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman inquired if the year 1996 was a solid commitment. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski stated he could ask MnDOT their experience on signals. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder suggested that Staff could look at the numbers, with the understanding that <br />we are not committing to anything right now. This issue can be brought back to the <br />Committee. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman felt that if it wouldn't happen until the year 2000, it's not <br />worth the wait. He recommended talking to MnDOT to see what kind of deal can be <br />worked out. <br /> <br />Case #3: Policy for Improvement Projects <br /> <br />City Engir~eer Jankowski stated that the City's current policy for improvement projects is <br />based on past practices. He read what the policy states. He stated that when the City does <br />specify a policy, it should be kept in mind that it is to the City's benefit to encourage sewer <br />and water. He stated that the existing policy could be maintained whereby the project <br />boundary is determined on a case by case basis and may be adjusted based upon testimony <br />at public hearing. The existing policy might be modified in a number of ways which could <br />include holding an informal neighborhood meeting prior to preparing the feasibility study, <br />or the petition could be reviewed by the Road and Bridge Committee to solicit input on <br />project boundaries, or a combination of both of these. The advantage of this procedure is <br />that it offers maximum opportunity for establishing a boundary which will result in a <br />successful:project. He suggested that the second alternative is to consider only public <br /> <br />Road & Bridge Committee/November 7, 1994 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />