Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Railroad Crossing Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff weigh cost-sharing, timing issues for South Passage railroad crossing replacement
Summary
Staff told the committee the railroad offered a cost‑share to replace planking at the South Passage crossing; staff recommended researching existing agreements and coordinating timing with a planned road reconstruction to limit closures and engineering costs.
Isanti City staff told the Committee of the Whole that the railroad is offering to replace the concrete planking at the South Passage crossing next year but is proposing that the city pay roughly half the tracked planking cost and run its own contract for traffic control and street patching.
Jason (staff member) said the railroad quoted about $1,000 per foot for planking and that the crossing requires roughly 40 feet of planking, which the railroad characterized as a $40,000 line‑item cost the city would have to fund via a force account agreement. Jason estimated that preparing state‑aid‑level plans, testing and the city’s traffic control and paving work could add roughly $50,000 in engineering and construction support costs, putting a ballpark city‑fundable project cost near $90,000 if the city used state aid for the non‑planking work.
Council members pressed staff on whether the city already has an agreement covering the crossing and asked staff to check county and railroad records. One council member noted that prior crossings (Main Street and Sandy Parkway) had written agreements and said it would be useful to compare the language to determine whether the railroad is statutorily and contractually entitled to put the cost on the city. “Before we offer to pay for half, I think we really should look at the language,” the council member said.
Staff explained that in earlier projects the city designed work to state aid standards so state aid funds could cover the city’s portion of traffic control, paving and curb work, and that coordinating a larger road reconstruction with the railroad’s schedule can be difficult because the railroad controls its timing. Jason recommended seeking agreements used on prior crossings, asking the railroad whether it will coordinate planking with the city’s expected road reconstruction (which staff indicated is planned within the next few years), and determining whether combining projects would yield savings that justify the coordination risk.
No formal vote was taken. The committee directed staff to locate existing crossing agreements, ask the railroad whether it will schedule the planking to align with the city’s planned South Passage reconstruction, and return with options and estimated costs.
