01-08-07 Full Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'. CIP Discussion . III R/2007 Page 4 and raising), sanitary sewer pipe lining, and sump pump inspections/disconncctions. Funding source: Sanitary Sewer Fund. CUII1J]lings Park: The hard court surfaces are proposed for reconstruction. Funding source: Special Revenue Parks Fund. This is a changc from prcvious discussions; and explanation is described in the Parks and Rccreation scction later in this report. Emergcncy Vehicle Pre-emption: As mentioncd earlier, the signals at the intersections sharcd with Shorevicw were postponed by Ramsey County, thercfore, all of thc costs t()f this projcct arc now included in the 2007 budget. Funding source: State Aid Fund. WateLjanker: A separate memorandum has been attached with staffs findings and recommendations. TraiJ maintenance plan: Staff is working on creating a maintenance plan ftlr thc City's trails. One option the City could consider to establish this is to use outside consultants f()r trail evaluation and dcvelopment of a maintenance plan. This could be accomplished by expanding GoodPointe's scrvices to include trails. They havc cvaluated trail systems in other cities and have assisted in developing trail maintenance plans similar to pavement . managcment programs. GoodPointe has provided a cost estimatc of just undcr $5,000; approximately $2,250 ft)r the fic]d inventory and condition survey. $2,080 for a 40-hour support agreement (which could also be used for street needs, if we have hours lcft over), and a S500 data set maintenance fee. The data maintenance fee is usually $] ,500, but with the existing agreements between Roseville and Arden I \ills, this data set would qualify as an additional set, which is provided at a discounted rate. 2008-2011Proiccts Pa~~cment M.nnagement Pf!)gram (PMP) Staff continued to work with GoodPointe in evaluating street conditions and the appropriate improvcments to each street sq,'lllent. An updated map of the 5- Year CIP (2007-20] 1) has been attached. Based on further analysis and review. some street segments were added to projects later in the 5-year cycle. Costs have becn updatcd appropriately in the CIP spreadsheet. At the last work session, Council requcsted infonnation streets that v>'Ould be includcd beyond the CUlTent 5-Year CIP. A map has been included in this report that summarizes the rccommendations from the ICON program for the years 20] 2-2016. The projects have not been broken down year by year, but the map gi ves a gcncral idea of the type of maintenance that is anticipated ftlr streets throughout the city. As with the 5-ycar plan, staff reviewed GoodPointc's results and made some adjustments bascd on maintaining a . neighborhood approach for reconstruction projects, not recommending mill and overlays for streets with drainage problems, lack of curb and gutter or lack of a sufficient base.