My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2011_0912
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
CC_Minutes_2011_0912
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/11/2011 11:42:01 AM
Creation date
10/11/2011 11:41:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/12/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, September 12, 2011 <br /> Page 29 <br /> and C less intense, but focusing on residential and commercial mitigation <br /> throughout the system. <br /> Ms. Bloom advised that the AUAR — Appendix H listed seventeen (17) different <br /> roadway improvements necessary to ensure no impact to the transportation system <br /> as redevelopment of the Twin Lakes area occurred. Ms. Bloom noted that im- <br /> provement cost allocations were based on a"cost per network trip;" and explained <br /> network trips, and how each parcel impacted different intersections and street <br /> segments from origin to destination. Ms. Bloom noted that those roadway cost <br /> estimates had been developed based on environmental clean-up needs, building <br /> demolition, actual right-of-way costs, actual construction and engineering costs; <br /> and adjustments from engineer's estimates and adjustments for construction infla- <br /> tion. <br /> Ms. Bloom provided an update from staff on a proposed change in methodology <br /> that expanded the area to be included in the allocation that would include parcels <br /> from previous development, including the addition of background traffic and the <br /> addition of base line traffic that would be covered by public funds and based on <br /> 2006 land use for existing uses. Ms. Bloom noted that the allocation agreement <br /> added redevelopment areas in existing areas, and comparisons were made be- <br /> tween the tables from 2010 and 2011 to see how the addition of the background <br /> and base line traffic impacted the infrastructure. Ms. Bloom noted that the origi- <br /> nal report only had four (4) of the seventeen (17) improvements for background <br /> traffic, and now the proposal was for $12 million in public costs with the back- <br /> ground traffic added. <br /> Ms. Bloom clarified that the base line network trips were based on pre-AUAR <br /> land uses; and if redevelopment traffic did not exceed that base line, they the par- <br /> cel would not have a cost allocation. Ms. Bloom noted that many uses in 2006 <br /> were not fully operational, and advised that staff had attempted to be conservative <br /> in their numbers. <br /> Ms. Bloom noted that the cost allocation overview for network trips represented <br /> the sum of this development's vehicular trips that pass through intersec- <br /> tions/segments requiring improvements; with the total cost allocation based on <br /> that specific development's total cost proportion based on its network impacts; <br /> creating an average cost per network trip with that total cost allocation divided by <br /> network trips. <br /> Based on that methodology, Ms. Bloom advised that the cost allocation summary <br /> indicated a total cost of$26,462,791, with public costs allocated at $14,260,683, <br /> and redevelopment costs allocated at $12,202,108. Ms. Bloom noted that the City <br /> had used grant funds and TIF dollars as applicable to-date; and this reduced the <br /> overall total, and created the rationale for this new methodology. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.