Agenda - Public Works Committee - 05/15/2012

Home

Councilmember McGlone asked if staff is suggesting to hold off on the project. Park Supervisor Riverblood suggested the Public Works Committee consider not moving forward with Segments 2 and 3 and consider Segment 1, noting it provides community connectivity along Alpine Drive up to the Sweet Bay boardwalk and trail. Park Supervisor Riverblood advised staff has submitted two grant applications for larger projects and once priorities are known, staff can break out funding priority. Councilmember Elvig asked about submitting additional trail grants. Park Supervisor Riverblood stated there is a small concern staff may be successful in two grants and the City will need funds for the match. He noted, however, if the agency is awarding $9 million in projects, one community would typically not be awarded two grants. Councilmember Elvig stated the Met Council is pushing trails. Public Works Director Olson indicated the TED program looks geographically at where they put money and take pride in assuring it is geographically spread round the State. Chairperson Backous asked if $33,000 from the MSA Fund would be used for the trail. City Engineer Himmer answered in the affirmative. Chairperson Backous stated his position that trails need to wait if the City does not have the money. He noted the City has been waiting to build at Elmcrest for many years and the City needs to balance out the projects. Park Supervisor Riverblood stated staff has not approached it recently but could also ask Anoka County, as part of the prioritization process, if they want to be co -applicant next year for a DNR trail grant for reasons of public safety. City Engineer Himmer explained that once constructed, staff will apply on the City's behalf for reimbursement from the Metropolitan Council. Councilmember Elvig stated support to proceed with Segment 1. City Engineer Himmer stated funding would come from State Aid and this segment can be added to the plans and bid as an alternate. The City can then decide once the bids are received. He noted that Segments 2 and 3 involve the need for delineation and acquisition. Councilmember McGlone stated funding is always a factor but an equal factor is working to take advantage of economies of scale. He believed there was a definite potential for savings with Segment 1 and doing it now would inconvenience the public only once. Councilmember McGlone stated he would argue for trails where the City is already doing a roadway project. He supported Segment 1 and asked if there were any other trail segments to consider, noting the City will be paving Sunfish Lake Boulevard. Public Works Committee / March 20, 2012 Page 7 of 9