Metro Mayor's Association Proposal for Creation of T.H. 10 & T.H. 169 Reconstruction Alliance

Purpose:  The purpose of this case is to consider participation in a T.H. 10 & T.H. 169 Reconstruction Alliance, pursuant to the attached proposal put together by the North Metro Mayor's Association (NMMA).

Background:  The NMMA has long considered the Highway 10/169 corridor as a high priority.  With the recent success of Ramsey in securing funding for the Armstrong Interchange Project, the belief is that now is the time to put additional effort toward securing funding that will ultimately lead to full freeway status for the corridor.  

Ramsey has had an ongoing contract with The Tinklenberg Group as a legislative consultant for a number of years.  Briefly, during 2006-07 an alliance was formed among the same entities, which dissolved due to lack of success and consensus toward construction goals.  
 

No notification necessary.

The proposal indicates that the five closest adjoining cities (i.e., Anoka, Andover, Coon rapids, Champlin, and Ramsey), Anoka County, and private business partners, comprise the Alliance.  The proposal is for a three-year commitment, amounting to $75,000 over the three years.  The proposal is for $15,000 in year one (2014) and $30,000 for each of the two subsequent years.  This amount is comparable, or less than, what the City might spend in a typical year for legislative consultants, and therefore, if all the other cities would join the Alliance, it would be a positive leverage of our existing dollars towards Ramsey's highest transportation priority.

However, the City of Anoka has already opted out of the NMMA proposal, and other cities have not yet weighed-in, so whether an effective Alliance can be built is still in question.  Anoka has indicated that they are okay with an Alliance per se, and would be at the table, however, they do not wish to spend money in this fashion.

Options include:
-  Reject the proposal.
-  Reject the proposal and seek modifications (e.g., a reduced cost or scope)
-  Reject the proposal and seek a separate consultant contract.
-  Accept the proposal with conditions (e.g., that all other members join).
-  Accept the proposal as is.

Clearly, if the corridor communities could unite, a stronger effort could be made together, as opposed to individually.  However,  it appears that additional work needs to be done among the five communities (individually and collectively) before all participants are willing to commit to firm plans and priorities.
 

As with previous consultant proposals of this type, funding is proposed to be allocated from the Public Improvement Revolving (PIR) Fund.  This fund is used for expenses related to public infrastructure improvements.

Staff is supportive of a collaborative effort, but the lack of area-wide support is of concern.   Therefore, the recommendation is to postpone action on this item pending feedback from the other prospective members.

Motion to postpone this item pending feedback from the other prospective members