Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br /> ... <br /> . <br /> The project is essentially anticipated to be financed with <br /> County, State and highway gas tax receipts and'funds appor- <br /> . tioned to Ramsey County. We estimate the cost of the project <br /> to be $1,213,760.60. That's our engineer's estimate. We'll <br /> take bids and prices will change. Of the total cost of the <br /> project, the County anticipates that $18,556.85 will come out <br /> of County road bridge funds for the construction of the detached <br /> bituminous path. We have asked the City of Shoreview for <br /> $23,619.75, on the basis of our estimate, for essentially some <br /> $19,000 worth of curb and gutter - participation for the con- <br /> crete curb and gutter - and $4200.00 worth of utility improve- <br /> ments which they have asked to have included in the plans. <br /> The plans have been presented to Shoreview, they have reviewed <br /> them, I believe they're looking into some financial aspects as <br /> to how they're going to fund their share of this project. We <br /> anticipate they may approve it at their next Council meeting <br /> next week. <br /> The Arden Hills participation in the project that we're <br /> asking for is estimated at $18,896.06, based on 75% of the <br /> cost of the curb and gutter adjacent to the Arden Hills <br /> properties. We have also asked that the City participate in <br /> the acquisition of any right-of-ways that may be necessary <br /> or easements required as part of the construction project. <br /> I believe, if I could just quickly review it, I think what <br /> we're proposing here is to continue the section south of Grey <br /> . Fox, down around the railroad tracks and "Ell there, on across <br /> 694 and up through "F", and up as far as the Control Data <br /> entrance. A companion to that is a project ,that will provide <br /> new traffic signals at "F" that are traffic actuated. That's <br /> a separate project, to be constructed simultaneously with this. <br /> There is essentially, to my knowledge, no real controversial <br /> issues with the project. I think the only place that there is <br /> some concern is that the existing bridge presently is 52 feet <br /> wide and it makes provision for two lanes across 694 - two lanes <br /> in each direction. It would be preferable to have two lanes <br /> in each direction, plus a left turn lane for those two ramps <br /> there. I think the biggest problem is the fact that we're pro- <br /> posing this eight foot bituminous path and it comes to the <br /> bridge without what we consider adequate provision to get <br /> pedestrians across.. With that concern in mind, we have been <br /> working with the highway department to provide a separate ten <br /> foot wide pedestrian facility on the east side of the widened <br /> . bridge, along with widening the bridge enough to provide for a <br /> left turn lane. <br /> This project has not developed to the point where we <br /> have scheduled the construction. It cannot be scheduled, I <br /> don't believe, to coordinate with this construction, but we <br /> are working towards what we see as a bottleneck in here - that <br /> is, the bridge over 694 - and the numerous left turns that are <br /> . made, either onto the ramp to go west or onto the ramp to 694 <br /> to go east. If the project, meets with the City of Shoreview's <br /> 2 <br /> ---- <br />