12/13/94 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE UPDATE ON ARMSTRONG/HIGHWAY #10 TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION By: Steven J. Jankowski, City Engineer Background: On November 7, 1:994, I reported to the Road and Bridge Committee and the City Council on the status of the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Armstrong Boulevard and Highway #10. At that meel~ing, I was directed to continue dialog with MnDOT to see what type of Joint Powers Agreement; might be negotiated to expedite the project from its currently scheduled January 1996 letting. This project is currently programn-~ed to be constructed with 80% Federal aid. The remaining share will be divided an!Ong the State, County and City. The City's share would be 37-1/2% of the 20% State and local share, or $10,500 based upon an estimated $140,000 construction cost. MnDOT will administer thelproject and will pick up the engineering, inspection, and administration costs of the project. In conversations with MnDOT officials, it has been decided that the project could be accelerated by six months by re-scheduling the bid letting to July 1, 1995, without losing the 80% Federal funds, since July 1, 1995 lis the beginning of Fiscal Year 1996, which is the 3'ear for which the project is currently r programmed. To be able to meet this letting date, the City would need to have plans for the signalization p~epared at an estimated cost of $12,000. MnDOT would undertake the remaining project elements which would include: (a) preparation of the signal justification report; (b) project letting; (c) contract administration and project management; (d) inspections; and (e) signal start-up for the expedited p~roject. In summary, the ~2ity's cost of this project will be approximately $10,500 under the current schedule. A negotiated joint powers agreement would expedite the signal installation by six months at an additional cost of approximately $12,000. To expedite the project would also require the City to fund a!$22,500 expenditure in 1995, which hasn't been included in the budget. A funding source will need to be identified if this project is to be expedited. Observation: A decision shouldibe made as to the actual benefit of expediting the project by six months and whether this benefi~t justifies the additional $12,000 the City would be incurring. If it is determined 0aat the cost out weighs the benefit of expediting the project, there would then be sufficient time to program the City's share of approximately $10,500 in the 1996 budget. Recommendation: It would seem that- a delay in construction to 1996 for a project of which we were only recently notified is not inappropriate. Therefore, Staff recommends the 1996 project with the incumbent $10,500 required e~pense. Committee Action Based on discussion. Reviewed By: City Administrator; City Engineer Finance Officer R&B: 12/13/94 /kaj