Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Corkell reviewed what happened when Highway 12 west of Minneapolis was transitioned <br />into 394. She stated that while some older businesses are gone, there are other ones thriving. She <br />stated that both MnDOT and the County are not opposed to businesses participating in the costs <br />and plans for this type of improvement. She noted that the County is not working on any <br />projects where there are not multiple funding sources. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig noted that he feels the County should have some funding sources since it <br />will not be building the Viking Stadium. <br /> <br />Mr. Dvorak stated that national policy makers and Governor Pawlenty like to see partnerships in <br />these types of projects. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen asked why The Tinklenberg Group completed the original planning study <br />and now SRF Engineering is involved. He stated that it will cost the City money to have SRF <br />Engineering review the work that Tinklenberg already completed. He stated that he does not <br />understand why the City did not have one group complete the entire project. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Olson explained the process of working with different entities. He stated <br />that the City had worked with Tinklenberg and S.E.H. on the initial study, but when looking at <br />proposals from S.E.H. and SRF Engineering, SRF was found to be a better fit, especially with <br />their interchange experience and the fact that they will also be working with Anoka. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich arrived at the meeting. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Olson reviewed the decision making process in choosing a company. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that it is a two step process and that the City received federal funding to <br />help complete step one and now step two is looking long term. He stated that he feels the two <br />are separate projects. He thanked the representatives from SRF Engineering and the County for <br />attending tonight's meeting and updating the City Council. <br /> <br />2) Condition of Premises Issues <br /> <br />Police Chief Way stated that in working on the abatement process with a particular landowner, <br />the time has run out with no compliance by the landowner. He stated that he would like <br />direction from the City Council on what should happen if they run into problems. He stated that <br />this landowner has distributed a No Trespassing document and asked if the City Council had <br />seen this document. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig noted that the notice was not officially distributed, but had been handed <br />around at a previous meeting. <br /> <br />Police Chief Way stated that if the department attempts to go to the property and process the <br />ordinance, which he believes, by law, it can do, and they are met with resistance, he would like <br />to know that the City Council is behind them. He stated that there is a potential for media <br /> <br />City Council Work Session / October 9, 2007 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />