Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Transportation Ap0 Beltline topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County approves APO cost‑sharing approach for BeltLine planning; resolution passes unanimously

5082555 · June 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Benton County Board voted to approve a cost‑sharing agreement from the Area Planning Organization (APO) that divides planning and certain environmental study costs for the regional BeltLine corridor; the board approved a resolution supporting the APO formula.

The Benton County Board voted to approve a resolution supporting an APO (Area Planning Organization) cost‑sharing agreement for planning work on the BeltLine corridor, a regional circular roadway around the St. Cloud urban area.

Brian Gibson, executive director of the APO, explained the agreement to commissioners. Under the APO recommendation, routine planning work would continue to be funded with the APO—s normal cost distribution formula. For federal or state funds used for a tier‑1 environmental impact statement (EIS), the implementing jurisdiction would pay 50% of local match for that tier‑1 EIS and the remaining 50% would be distributed among APO jurisdictions per the normal formula. Tier‑2 EISs, and detailed design, right‑of‑way and construction work, would remain the sole responsibility of the implementing jurisdiction.

Why it matters: the BeltLine is a multi‑jurisdictional facility intended to improve mobility around St. Cloud; sharing the costs of early planning and tier‑1 environmental review spreads costs and preserves federal eligibility for regional projects, the APO said.

Commissioners discussed the formula and its safeguards. Brian Gibson and Commissioner Kopinski said the approach prevents one jurisdiction from bearing unknown future obligations related to another jurisdiction—s decision to proceed with construction. Gibson used a $1 million example: Benton County—s share under the APO formula would be roughly $3,860 of the local match on a $1 million tier‑1 EIS after the implementing jurisdiction pays its 50%.

Motion and outcome: Commissioner (motion maker) moved to approve the resolution supporting the APO cost‑sharing agreement and a second was received; the board voted "Aye" and the motion carried.

Ending: The board thanked APO staff and Commissioner Kopinski for their work on the agreement and adopted the resolution in a roll‑call vote.