My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.1.A. SR 02-21-2006
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2006
>
02/21/2006
>
5.1.A. SR 02-21-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:35:44 AM
Creation date
2/17/2006 10:13:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
2/21/2006
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
<br />MnDOT geared up to get the accelerated projects out for bids. Soon <br />the projects were ready to start, but the money to pay for them was <br />not. <br /> <br />The Pawlenty plan counted on federal funds from a new <br />congressional transportation bill. <br /> <br />In November 2004, the state's transportation commissioner, Lt. Gov. <br />Carol Momau, warned: " The planning and construction of highway <br />projects has become increasingly difficult given the absence of new <br />federal funds and the unpredictability of future federal funding <br />levels. " <br /> <br />Under short-term extensions, prior to passage of a new bill, <br />Minnesota received $70 million less than MnDOT projected in 2004 <br />and about $80 million less than projected in 2005. <br /> <br />At the same time, project costs were escalating due to cost increases <br />for fuel, steel and concrete. <br /> <br />As a result, Momau delayed start of work on the Interstate Hwys. <br />694/35E interchange in Little Canada by a year, and ultimately <br />postponed the new interchange at Hwy. 169 and Interstate Hwy. 494 <br />in Edina indefinitely. <br /> <br />In August 2005, 22 months after MnDOT expected it, the big federal <br />transportation bill became law, amounting to a 46 percent increase <br />over the previous bill. <br /> <br />Exactly what that meant was not clear until January when MnDOT <br />announced it would receive $20 million per year less than it <br />anticipated from the federal government through 2008, and the <br />entire increase would go to cost overruns on metro projects. <br /> <br />"We decided long ago that it is better to keep the projects that we <br />had planned on board and moving forward rather than cut a bunch of <br />metro projects and start other projects elsewhere," said Abigail <br />McKenzie, director of MnDOT's Office of Investment Management. <br /> <br />Outstate legislators were frustrated. "I've never seen highway <br />projects take the political tenor that they've taken in the last three <br />years," said Rep. AI Juhnke, DFL- Willmar. "MnDOT says, 'Well, <br />guess what, folks, we are short of money... Don't worry, rural <br />Minnesota, you'll never miss it'." <br /> <br />Better cost estimates <br /> <br />The Federal Highway Administration has encouraged MnDOT to do <br />a better job of estimating and controlling project costs. "If something <br />starts to increase, whether cost or schedule on a highway project, we <br />need to be prepared to explain why," said Tom Sorel, the Minnesota <br />division administrator for the federal agency. <br /> <br />:3 Dt L( <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.