Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CIP Discussion <br />8/17/2006 . <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />and raising), sanitary sewer pipe lining, and sump pump inspections/disconnections. <br />Funding source: Sanitary Sewer Fund, <br /> <br /><,:'grnmrngs Park: The hard court surfaces are propused for reconstruction. Funding <br />source: Special Revcnue Parks Fund. This is a change from previous discussions; and <br />explanation is dcscrihed in the Parks and Rccreation section later in this report. <br /> <br />!:mergency Vehicle Pre-emption: As mentioned earlier, the signals at the intersections <br />shared with Shorcview were postponed by Ramsey County, therefore, all of the costs for <br />this projcct are now included in thc 2007 hudget. Funding source: State Aid Fund. <br /> <br />Water tanker: A separate memorandum has been attached with staffs findings and <br />recommendations. <br /> <br />Trail maintenance plan: Staff is working on creating a maintenance plan for the City's <br />trails. One option the City could consider to establish this is to use outside consultants for <br />trail evaluation and dcvclopment of a maintenance plan. This could be accomplishcd by <br />expanding GoodPointe's services to include trails. They have evaluated trail systems in <br />other citics and have assisted in devcloping trail maintenancc plans similar to pavement <br />managcmcnt programs. GoodPointe has provided a cost estimate of just under $5,000; . <br />approximately $2,250 for the field inventory and condition survey, $2,080 for a 40-hour <br />support agreement (which could also be used for street needs, if we have hours left over), <br />and a $500 data set maintenance fee. The data maintenance fee is usually $ I ,500, but <br />with the existing agreements hetween Roseville and Arden Hills, this data set would <br />qualify as an additional sct, which is provided at a discounted rate. <br /> <br />2008-2011 Proiects <br /> <br />Pavement Management Program (PMP) <br />Staff continued to work with GoodPointe in evaluating street conditions and the <br />appropriate improvements to each street segment. An updated map of the 5- Year CIP <br />(2007-201]) has been attached. Based on further analysis and review, some street <br />segments were added to projects later in the 5-year cycle, Costs have been updated <br />appropriately in the CIP spreadsheet. <br /> <br />At the lasl work session, Council rcquested inf()rmation streets that would be included <br />beyond thc current 5-Year CIP. A map has been included in this report that summarizes <br />the recommcndations from the ICON program for the years 2012-2016. The projects <br />have not been broken down year by year, but the map gives a general idea of the type of <br />maintenance that is anticipaled for streets throughout the city. As with the 5-year plan, <br />staff reviewed GoodPointe's results and made some adjustments based on maintaining a . <br />neighborhood approach for reeonstTllction projects, not recommending mill and overlays <br />for streets with drainage prohlems, lack of curb and gutter or lack of a sufficient base, <br />