My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
11/07/94
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Road and Bridge Committee
>
Agendas
>
1994
>
11/07/94
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/28/2025 4:28:38 PM
Creation date
10/20/2003 10:19:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Document Title
Road and Bridge Committee
Document Date
11/07/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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).
View images
View plain text
Case <br /> <br />SIGNAL AT ARMSTRONG BOULEVARD N.W. AND HIGHWAY #10 <br /> By: City Engineer Steven Jankowski <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />The intersection of Armstrong Boulevard N.W. and Highway #I0 is scheduled to be signalized in <br />1996. At the present time, MnDOT has the project letting scheduled for January 1996, which <br />means that the signals would be operational by June 1996. The warrant which justified the <br />installation relates to accident experiences. Accident records for the three-year period from January <br />1, 1991 through December 31, 1993, indicates a total of 21 accidents, including eight personal <br />injuries. In 1994i there was one fatality at this intersection. Lack of funding is responsible for the <br />present 1996 installation schedule. <br /> <br />I have spoken with Staff in MnDOT's traffic signal section who have indicated that the current <br />schedule might lie accelerated by perhaps nine months, if funding were available at the present <br />time. To accommodate this accelerated time frame, the City needs to agree to up-front the total <br />project cost and pp~ ssibly incur some of the design costs. At a minimum, I would anticipate that the <br />City would be reimbursed for the County and State shares of the construction costs in 1996 when <br />this project is cunrently scheduled for funding. <br /> <br />The normal disffibution of costs for a typical signal is divided based upon the jurisdiction <br />responsibility forithe legs of the intersection. The State would pay 50% (east and west legs); the <br />County 25% (no~th leg) and the City 25% (south leg). In addition, the County's policy requires <br />the municipality t~ pay 50% of its share plus the electrical costs of operation and bulb maintenance. <br />The estimated cost for a signal is $100,000, plus overhead and engineering. <br /> <br />The Road and Bridge Committee should decide whether or not the City should consider exploring <br />the conditions of ~a joint powers agreement with MnDOT to accelerate the time frame of the signal <br />installation. ' <br /> <br />Committee Action: <br /> <br />Motion to recommend to Council to proceed to develop a joint powers agreement with the State and <br />County to expedite the installation of the Armstrong and Highway #10 signalization. <br /> <br />Reviewed By: <br />City Engineer <br /> <br />R&B: 11/7/94 <br /> <br />Copies Distributed To: <br /> <br />City Administrator <br />Finance Officer <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.