CC_Minutes_2013_1125 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,November 25, 2013 Page 5 7, 14, 21 5, 12 9, 16, 23 July August September 7, 14, 21 11, 18, 25 8, 15, 22 October November December 6, 20, 27 10, 17 1, 8 9. General Ordinances for Adoption 10. Presentations a. County Road B Discussion Public Works Director Duane Schwartz summarized comments received by the Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC) at their October 2013 meeting from residents in the County Road B neighborhood, rela- tive to the advisory commission's low ranking of a pathway in their update of the Pathway Master Plan Build-Out; as well as other issues related to County Road B west of Cleveland Avenue. Mr. Schwartz reviewed some of those issues heard at that meeting, and study and/or actions taken by staff since then regarding that stretch of roadway, seeking to confirm and/or clarify those concerns. Speed Mr. Schwartz advised that the road was posted with a speed limit of 40 mph, with a study performed since the October 2013 PWEC meeting by Roseville staff indi- cating the 85th percentile speed recorded at a high of 46.1 mph at the Cleveland Avenue end and a low of 36.2 mph further west. Mr. Schwartz further advised that the existing pavement was 26' wide; and had a remaining life of between 8 to 10 years. Jurisdiction Mr. Schwartz clarified that the roadway was still under Ramsey County's jurisdic- tion, with County and City staff currently negotiating turn back agreement terms for consideration by the City Council at a future date. As typical, Mr. Schwartz noted that, while the desire of Ramsey County is to turn back jurisdiction of the roadway to the City of Roseville, the City's concern was related to dollars accom- panying that turnback to address deficiencies with the pavement and drainage along County Road B. Therefore, Mr. Schwartz advised that terms for a turnback agreement were still under negotiation at the staff level. If the City Council was amenable to a potential turnback agreement for their consideration in the near fu- ture, Mr. Schwartz asked that staff be directed to continue negotiating with Ram- sey County. While an agreement is getting closer, Mr. Schwartz advised that County staff had asked that no numbers be shared at this time, as it was still under