3. Pam Smith-Grant Q A 9-3-14 (2)LOG HOUSE LANDING GRANT Q & A – APPROVED 9/3/14
1. Q. Source of grant?
A. State Park Road Account – Funded by gas-pump tax.
2. Q. Is this a matching grant?
A. No. Grant is for $200k regardless of overall cost. (TS) If project comes in under budget, unused road
funds would revert back to State Aid. (DS)
Q. Expiration on grant?
A. No (DS)
Q. What are limitations for grant spending? “Letter says reconstruction, improvement, repair and
maintenance of country roads.”
A. The cost is really for the road and any road related expenses. Regrading of road and landing,
chemical additives to provide section strength, storm water treatment – rock channel and holding pond,
berms along the road to prevent run-off to the river and trout stream would be allowed. The boat ramp
would not be included. Close parking would not be allowed, parking as part of the road may be allowed.
(DS)
Q. Could road be reduced in size and be kept aggregate w/ substantial regrading and still qualify for
grant funds?
A. Aggregate would qualify. (WS) Aggregate would qualify. They may reduce amount of grant if overall
project cost goes down. (DS) Changes to the plan must be approved by DNR, road widths less than
standards will require a variance. (DS)
Q. If changes are radical from original plan, could city lose grant even if we show good reasons for
change?
A. We did not define “radical” in our discussion. Deleting bituminous is not radical. DNR likes to see
roads that are lower impact and less destructive to the environment. Very pleased about community
participation and thinks this is exactly what should be happening in this part of the process. (DS)
Q. Would City need to reapply for significant changes in plan or can final plan just contain these changes
based on environmental impact and community input?
A. Reapplication is not needed, but they would need to submit changes. It would be a good idea to get
letters of support from same people/agencies who wrote them for the original grant. (DS)
Q. Is grant variance approval likely?
A. Most grant variances with good justification are approved. There has been a movement to look at
livability and context when reviewing grant. (WS and TS) If it goes through transparent thoughtful
process and there are good environmental reasons and community support. Want to see public
engagement. They like to take into account economic, environmental and social reasons. Want locals to
have ownership in any plan. (TS) Every project is different and will be reviewed independently. (DS)
Q. Who approves variance?
A. A variance for this project would need to be approved by the DNR Principal Engineer, Dave Sobania,
and the MnDOT State Aid Engineer, Julie Skallman. (TS and DS) Because it is not a state aid road the
standard variance committee won’t need to review. (TS)
Q. What is process and timing for variance request? Is it at the time of the engineering plan submission?
A. Yes, the variance should come in with plans. Revised plans and variance can be submitted when
ready. No special submission timing requirement. (DS)
Q. Can the city engineer ask questions when developing the plan, to stay on track with likely approval?
A. Yes, a good idea. (DS)
Q. Can discussions take place to save multiple variance submittals– an exchange that allows
collaboration? It would save a lot of time and money if the city knows in advance what would likely be
approved.
A. Yes, discussion in advance of submitting a plan is a good idea. Would be happy to meet on site and
review plan before any submission. (DS)
Q. Are there county rules for width determined by # of vehicle trips per day?
A. I am not familiar with this county’s road standards please ask Co. Eng., but there are many DNR roads
that are single lane with pull outs every 0.5 miles or less for passing. You want good visibility between
pull outs. DOT engineer would have to agree with width as well. I think people tend to drive faster on
wider roads. DOT may disagree?? Narrow and aggregate surface keeps traffic slower. When making the
case for smaller road, include low usage, location in NSP, factors such as how the road works now (with
current speed, usage and pull outs,) environmental concerns, historical sensitivity, community input,
etc. (DS)
Q. What road width will likely be approved? 10’ driving lanes are standard for city streets with much
higher usage and length – in this small access road would anything less pass? Note – roads leading to
other landings in the area vary from 16-17 Franconia, 18 - Somerset.
A. Tough question since there are no standard for roads like this. (WS)
Q. If costs go down, would grant likely be reduced?
A. Yes, even though it is not a matching grant, they may want to see a similar ratio of cost sharing. (DS)
Q. What is the increased liability to the City if they vary from the State Aid geometric standards for road
width?
A. This would be a question for a municipal attorney. However, the city liability would likely be low for a
variance that doesn’t conform to the standards provided the design is well vetted and the City can show
a thoughtful process – open and transparent with public engagement. Should not be a risk to individual
council members – they would likely have immunity. Again, you should consult an attorney for specifics.
(TS) (DS)
Q. The Washington County Public Works Director, Donald Theisen, made an onsite visit and suggested
that Quinnell road, which is in very poor condition, and leads to this very short 1400 ft 205th road could
be included in the Grant – it could be considered part of the “access to the river” goal in this grant. So, if
the price comes down on 205th because of more modest improvements, could the remainder of the
$200k be used for repairs on Quinnell? Is that something that could be addressed in a change request?
Is it a possibility?
A. This would be a local decision, but Metro would not be opposed. (TS) This would be a possibility, but
it would need to be submitted as a change request and reviewed by the DNR before any funds were
released. But again, it would need to be reviewed. (DS)