9.0. SR 01-27-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pat Klaers January 23, 1997 Page Two On July 26, 1995, we received a letter from Doran Cote, stating that the project schedule had changed. The project was originally planned to be constructed entirely in 1995. The change was to begin the northern end of the project in 1995 and the southern part of the project would be continued until the summer of 1996. On Tuesday, March 19, 1996, we had a joint City Council/County Board meeting. The project still had not been begun. Now there were new issues injected into the discussion. Two major issues were: 1) the City Park and Recreation Department requesting a pedestrian tunnel at the City trail intersection with CSAH 1 and a detached pathway adjacent to the roadway, and 2) the discussion of whether the road should be a 3-lane design or a 4-lane design. If it was determined to be a 4- lane design, then the intersections with School Street and TH 10 needed to be expanded. On April 24, 1996, I wrote a memo to the City Council laying out the options for the design of CSAH 1, as requested by Dave Schwarting. The City Council at their April 29, 1996, City Council meeting, opted for a 4-lane design with intersection improvement only at TH 10. This meant that the intersection of School Street and CSAH 1 would not be signalized but would remain a 4-way stop. On ~ 10, 1996, I wrote a letter to Dave Schwarting conveying the City Council direction regarding the design of the road to him. In that letter, I indicated that I thought the City Council would be agreeable to the City of Elk River taking a lead on the plans and specifications for the intersection of CSAH 1 and TH 10 improvements. I also indicated to Mr. Schwarting that we would need a formal request from him for the City Council to act on this. On May 7, 1996, the signal justification report for the traffic signal at CSAH 1 and School Street was completed and forwarded to MnDOT. The report justified the installation of a traffic signal. By this time, this was a mute point because of the Council decision to opt for a 4-lane design with the current 4-way stop remaining in place. On October 8, 1996, the question of the County participating in funding for a detached pathway was on the County Board agenda. Dave Anderson and I attended that meeting. Dave Anderson made a presentation suggesting that the width of the road could be narrowed, with that savings used to help offset the cost of the trail. In addition, the remaining approximately $50,000 of cost for the trail could be split between the City and the County. The County Board, after a lengthy discussion, agreed and directed that the road be narrowed, the savings be used to offset the cost of a detached pathway, and the remaining cost associated with the pathway be split between the County and the City. 230/213-2301.jan