My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013-11-26_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2013
>
2013-11-26_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2014 9:38:08 AM
Creation date
1/29/2014 9:37:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
11/26/2013
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
Member Felice questioned if a road was reconstructed, wouldn't an agreement <br /> exist for it to include a pathway. <br /> Mr. Schwartz responded that this County Road B segment had already been part <br /> of the original Pathway Master Plan for a number of years. <br /> Member Felice opined that this should provide a stronger case for Ramsey <br /> County's consideration. <br /> Mr. Schwartz reviewed the new Ramsey County cost-participation policy for <br /> sharing 50% of the hard costs. However, Mr. Schwartz noted that the newly- <br /> adopted policy had yet to be included in the County's capital improvement <br /> program (CIP) or prioritized based on their road program. Mr. Schwartz opined <br /> that, in their lifetime, this roadway would never reach a reconstruction priority in <br /> the Ramsey County program given that it no longer met their criteria as a county <br /> road anymore with its disconnection from Highway 280 as a result of the I-35W <br /> Bridge collapse. <br /> With Members DeBenedet, Gjerdingen and Felice, and himself revising their <br /> rankings, Chair Vanderwall noted that the composite ranking moved to a 3.2, and <br /> opined that this sufficiently brought it up in the ranking priority with other <br /> segments. <br /> Moving on to other segments, Chair Vanderwall sought any other individual <br /> Member revisions to their rankings. <br /> Member Gjerdingen sought to revisit the Map #27 (Heinel Drive Connection— <br /> Option 2 — Off-Road), opining that the cost seemed to low when a boardwalk <br /> would be needed to realistically make it work. <br /> Chair Vanderwall reiterated the need for the PWETC to consider rankings, not <br /> details for costing but to leave that up to staff s expertise. <br /> Chair Vanderwall noted that the highest ranked segment was Map #25 (Northeast <br /> Diagonal Trail Connection— Option 1 — County Road C to Walnut Street), finding <br /> that it hadn't even made the Natural Resources and Trails (NRATC) as part of the <br /> Park Renewal Program. <br /> Member DeBenedet concurred, noting that it certainly made the PWETC's list. <br /> Member DeBenedet further noted that when Ramsey County reconstructs Long <br /> Lake Road, an outside funding source option to leverage funds to complete the <br /> project would be available and allow for some flexibility. Member DeBenedet <br /> opined that, once the Parks Renewal Program received and considered this final <br /> recommendation and list of the PWETC, they may reconsider their initial <br /> priorities, and with both lists provided to the City Council, the City Council could <br /> then take advantage of both in making their final decisions. <br /> Page 10 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.