Lake Elmo council approves ad for bids on Village Parkway Union Pacific Railroad crossing

Lake Elmo City Council members voted Jan. 21 to approve plans and specifications and order the advertisement for bids for the Village Parkway Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) crossing improvements, with staff and council members saying the city will return with financing details before any award is made.

The measure, resolution 2025-010, directs staff to advertise for construction bids for a crossing that will include signal arms, a trail on one side and a sidewalk on the other, and a directional-drilled water main beneath the railroad. The council approved the bid advertisement by voice vote; no members opposed.

Council members said the crossing has been in planning documents for years and that the city won an administrative ruling from the Minnesota Department of Transportation to proceed after Union Pacific initially denied the permit. Jack, a city staff member, told the council the plans and specifications were completed several years ago and that the city now is seeking contractor bids; staff expect to return in March with a recommendation to award the contract.

“At this time we're just asking to go out for bids, and then we present it again in March when we bring the award back,” Jack said. He described the project sequence: the city will construct roadway approaches, then wait for UPRR crews for surface and signal work before final paving and signal arm installation.

Council member Dragosic raised questions about the project’s funding, pointing to the city’s recently adopted capital improvement plan (CIP), which lists $1,065,200 from the infrastructure fund and $352,800 from the water fund for the crossing. Dragosic said the infrastructure fund showed only about $185,000 in cash at the end of 2023 and expressed concern about approving a project for which available cash was unclear.

“I just think it'd be prudent to wait until Clarissa gets back and find out how we're going to pay for this,” Dragosic said. He asked staff to clarify whether the city had actually collected the amounts identified in the CIP during 2024 and whether developer agreements obligate private contributions.

Jack and other staff described a lengthy permitting and coordination history with UPRR, including an administrative hearing with MnDOT and several years of negotiations and scheduling with the railroad. Jack warned that UPRR’s scheduling can be slow and that delays or missed windows could affect the project timeline and costs.

City legal counsel Sarah told the council it may advertise for bids without committing to award the contract. “You can always reject the bids, basically, for any reason,” she said, and noted the city may hold bids up to 60 days if it needs time to confirm financing.

Several council members requested staff to return at the next meeting with a detailed accounting of funds, and to review development agreements tied to Easton Village phases 2 and 3 that appear in city records to include developer contributions toward rail-crossing costs. Council staff said they had located language in the Easton Village 2 and 3 agreements that references contributions for the crossing but that the total collected to date was not immediately available.

The crossing scope described by staff includes clearing vegetation to meet sight-line standards, providing pedestrian accommodations to improve safety downtown, and separating the cost into a street portion and a water-enterprise portion for the trunk water main under the railroad. Sewer was not part of the crossing work because a prior project had installed a sewer crossing further east.

By approving the ad for bids, the council authorized staff to solicit contractor proposals; any award will be considered separately once the city’s financing position and developer contributions are clarified. Jack and staff noted that, because Union Pacific schedules its own crews and materials on its timetable, a longer delay in proceeding could jeopardize the city’s ability to complete the work this year.

The council approved the motion to advertise for bids by voice vote; no roll-call tally was recorded in the meeting minutes. Staff said bids will be presented to the council with updated cost and funding information when they return in March.