Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit Blue Line topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Blue Line Extension update: city weighs $5M in EDA streetscape choices and whether to bury Xcel lines
Summary
City staff updated council on Blue Line Extension streetscape costs and tradeoffs, describing steps taken to reduce an initially higher estimate and highlighting two major uncertainties — the cost to bury Xcel lines and street‑lighting lease charges — while presenting a plan to use EDA funds and phased elements.
City staff and the Blue Line project team presented a streetscape and budget update for the Blue Line Extension through Brooklyn Park, showing which streetscape elements the project would pay for, which the city would pay for, and which costs would be shared. Staff said they had reduced a prior streetscape estimate from about $7.5 million toward a goal under $6 million by trimming high‑cost design features (light spires, banner poles, irrigation and some color concrete) and by deferring some plantings until after construction or leveraging future development.
Mark Gladhill, presenting city funding options, said the city has identified $5 million in Economic Development Authority (EDA) funds in the capital improvement plan for streetscape enhancements. "We've identified $5,000,000 in streetscape enhancements to be funded by EDA," Gladhill told the council. He also flagged that anti‑displacement and park‑and‑ride contributions could affect the EDA picture and warned that burying Xcel distribution lines would be a large additional cost if pursued.
Staff presented a north/south cost split tied to Hwy 610: north of 610 staff estimated approximately $11.28 million of city participation (including about $5M in utility work) and south of 610 approximately $15.8 million of participation (streetscape, water main work, trail connections). The two biggest unknowns are the Xcel distribution burial estimate (staff said early indications may be higher than $4 million and that Xcel tends to provide conservative high estimates) and the street‑lighting lease/installation costs from Xcel. Council members asked whether an Xcel surcharge could be limited to benefiting properties and staff said Xcel generally allows cost allocation to benefiting properties but exact boundaries would be determined with Xcel.
On procurement and schedule, project staff said the contract strategy for major civil work is a best‑value procurement (evaluation of technical proposal and price) rather than a strict low‑bid design‑bid‑build and that the team intends to pursue the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding application process (FFGA/CIG) in 2026 with major civil work expected to start in 2027. City staff said the streetscape design could be scaled to match EDA availability and that certain decorative items could be deferred to future development or funded later.
What happens next: staff will refine cost estimates (including refined Xcel numbers), continue discussions about burying power lines and lamp standards, and return to council with updated numbers and funding options. No formal council action was taken at the work session.
Ending: Councilmembers asked for finer cost breakouts and reminded staff that streetscape elements are visible investments the public will long associate with the project; staff said they will return with additional detail and potential options to phase or reduce elements to stay within EDA and other funding constraints.
