Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> CIP Discussion . <br /> 1/1 X/2007 <br /> Page 4 <br /> and raising), sanitary sewer pipe lining, and sump pump inspections/disconnections. <br /> Funding source: Sanitary Sewer Fund. <br /> Cummings I?ark: The hard court surhH:es arc proposed for ITCllllstruction. Funding <br /> source: Special Revenue Parks Fund. This is a change from previous discussions: and <br /> explanation is described in the Parks and Recreation section later in Ihis report. <br /> Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption: As mentioned earlier. the signals at the intersections <br /> shared with Shoreview were postponed by Ramsey County, therefore. all of the costs for <br /> this project are now included in the 2007 budget. Funding source: State Aid Fund. <br /> lY.iller tankec A separate memorandum has been attached with staIrs findings and <br /> recommendations. <br /> Jr.;J,il l11ain!.~-'ljHJ<,:_e..pl!ll: Staff is \\'orking on creating a maintenance plan Il)r the City's <br /> trails. One option the City could consider to establish this is to use outside consultants for <br /> trail evaluation and development of a maintenance plan. This could be accomplished by <br /> expanding GoodPointe's services to include trails. They have evaluated trail systems in <br /> other cities and have assisted in developing trail maintenance plans similar to pavement . <br /> management programs. GoodPointe has provided a cost estimate of just under $5,000; <br /> approximately $2,250 fl)r the field inventory and condition survey. $2,0~0 for a 40-hour <br /> support agreement (which could also be used li.)r street needs, if we have hours kH over), <br /> and a $500 data set maintenance fee. The data maintenance ICe is usually S 1.500, but <br /> with the existing agreements between Roseville and Arden Hills. this data sct would <br /> qualify as an additional set. which is provided at a discounted rate. <br /> 2008-20 II Proiects <br /> Pavem_C:lltl\1am1!~~m~nt Procram (PMPl <br /> Staff continued to work with GoodPointe in evaluating stred conditions and the <br /> appropriate improvements to each street segment. An updated map of the 5- Year ('IP <br /> (2007-2011) 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 elP spreadsheet. <br /> At the last work session, Council requested information streets that \vould be included <br /> beyond the current 5-Year CIP. A map has heen included in this report that summarizes <br /> the recommendations from the ICON program fi.)r 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 anticipated t()r streets throughout the city. As with the 5-year plan. <br /> stalf revie\Ned GoodPointe's results and made some adjustments based on maintaining a . <br /> neighborhood approach f()r reconstruction projects. not recommending mill and overlays <br /> for streets with drainage problems, lack of curb and gutter or lack of a sufficient base. <br /> ---- <br />