6.7. - 6.8. SR 09-16-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council September 11, 2002 Page Two constructed with the monies the County has budgeted for each read. Based on our discussions and analysis, we would offer the following points for discussion purposes: It appears that the dollar amounts budgeted for each project are approximately adequate to off-set the County's construction cost on these two projects. It does not appear that the budgeted dollars are sufficient for land acquisition and/or overhead items. Also, there are construction costs that would be considered entirely the City's, given the County cost participation policy. These costs--such as detached trails, lighting, landscaping, concrete medians, etc.--are not funded in these budget amounts. Therefore, it should be noted that a total project cost could be well in excess of the County budgeted amount for each of these projects. On the County Road 40 project, the County can be expected to pay some dollar amount above and beyond the TEA 21 grant. The County's cost participation policy states that on projects with federal funds, the federal grant amount will be deducted from the total cost first, and the remaining costs will be split between the City and the County, according to the County's cost participation policy. With the County Road 40 improvement, the County's cost participation policy will require the City to acquire all additional right-of-way needed for the project. This will include at least three portions of right-of-way necessary to straighten out the 90 degree curves and the intersection with CSAH 13. It appears clear that if these roads both remain in the County jurisdiction, Sherbume County will proceed with an improvement to County Road 44 (Meadowvale Road) in 2004. It is unclear what that improvement will be and whether or not the City will be able to provide much if any input relative to street section and pedestrian facilities. It is less clear with the planned improvement to County Road 40 (Cleveland Avenue). Potentially, if the City does not take the lead and acquire the right-of-way to facilitate that improvement, the County could forgo the TEA 21 grant and not make an improvement to County Road 40 at this time. We have had a bdef discussion with a developer interested in developing property on the east side of County Road 40 near the 'intersection with CSAH 13. The property is currently outside the urban service distdct and the developer is interested in an urban-type development. Cleady if the City were to consider taking back either or both County roads, there is an issue of additional maintenance relative to snow plowing, sweeping, crack sealing, and seal coating, beyond the issue of reconstructing both of these roads. It is difficult to put a exact dollar amount on the on-going maintenance issue the City would be undertaking. If the City were to take back either or both of these roadways, they would go immediately on to the City's Municipal State Aid system. This would provide a potential funding source for the City's cost of upgrading either or both of these roads that currently would not exist with the County undertaking the improvement under their jurisdiction. There is, however, a small benefit to the City's Municipal State Aid system, if the County could get a County State Aid designation on County Road 44 (Meadowvale Road) pdor to turning it back to the City. The benefit is that County State Aid tumbacks go on to the Municipal State Aid system above and Ltr-091102-Council Howard R, Green Company