Laserfiche WebLink
<br />10-09-200 9,09AM <br /> <br />FROM DRWILLIAMKRIVIT 6126264595 <br /> <br />P. 2 <br /> <br />,; <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />B. Past hlstorll 01 Ingerson Road-.Jncludes co Dies 01 Ramsav <br />county and Rrden Hills Council communications May 2B. 1996. <br />1.This was considered as a residential road then. The road was giuen a <br />"98- rating which City Council accepted without written comment. A <br />"bituminous ouerlay in 1988 and a sealcoat in 199B" was done. <br /> <br />2. First BRW report to City Council in 1999 noted Ingerson to be a <br />"55". Howeuer, in today's feasibJity study, the Pauement Condition <br />Indel<es(PlERSE NOTE PLURAL) is now a "weighted auerage" of "55." <br />This is based on a .. range of 11-86." Such a weighted auerage is sort <br />of like the "statistician who drowned in a lake with an auerage depth <br />of two inches" _ Why are we fil<ing roads like Ingerson Road or Carlton <br />. Driue that haue PCI of 86? <br /> <br />3. The present feasiblity report notes that roads haue receiued no <br />ouerlays within the .past 12 years." This represents a skewed and <br />strained representation of facts. There has been road maintenance as <br />recently as 1996 under arrangement made with Ramsay County. <br /> <br />Co Cost of 1:45.88 Der LF as now noted in feasibility study <br />1. The Dunlap and Tiller lane project had a width of 32' with deep . <br />eHcauations. Now, the present feasiblity report is using 28' and not as <br />deep an eHcauation and filling. The cost for the farmer was <br />considerably less than present $45.8B. Inflation can not account for <br />this difference. <br /> <br />2. Mr. Gregg larson and I discussed this on 1 8/a/88.1 asked him <br />whether or not comparable cities haue had such increases. <br /> <br />3. The present feasibility report now contains items not preuiously <br />included (j.e. hydrant remoual, larger contingency costs etc.). Why are <br />these now necessary but not thought of or considered 9 months ago? <br /> <br />For record completeness, I would appreciate receiving a copy of the <br />following which were not included in feasibility BRW report itself. <br />The el<hibits in feasibility study haue not been made auailable. <br />EHhibit 1 Project location Map; <br />EHhibit 2_ Proposed Improuements (north Hamline) <br />EHhibit 3. Proposed Improuements <br />EHhibit 4. Roadways Typical Sections Details. <br />Please can you FAH them to me at 612-626-4595 on Tuesday AM? <br /> <br />. <br />