CC_Minutes_2014_0324 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 24, 2014 Page 15 to 5, with one the highest and 5 the lowest priority; and a map included with the location of each of those segments. Mr. Schwartz noted that as part of the PWEC's recommendation, the City Council Master Plan Build-out should be guided over the next twelve years for funding those segments listed at 3.4 or higher as the highest priorities. Mr. Schwartz also noted that their recommenda- tion suggested that the City Council give priority to any reconstruction or pave- ment projects for Ramsey County rights-of-way; and that the City Council give consideration to consider moving segments within the Plan as they may coincide with City pavement projects as well. Mr. Schwartz noted that the PWETC asked that staff specifically advise the City Council that their recommendation did not include County Road B-2 as a priority, based on their understanding that County Road B-2, which would have been a top priority, was already in process as part of the Parks Master Plan Implementation and currently in bid evaluation. Mr. Schwartz noted that, throughout the process, the PWETC was challenged to define a set of criteria for that build-out recommendation, including previous work done in 2008 and documentation; all evidenced in their final ranking rec- ommendation and discussion detailed in their Commission meeting minutes; and including several opportunities for public comment throughout their deliberations. Mr. Schwartz clarified that the intent of this presentation tonight was for the City Council to receive the recommendations of the PWEC; with no further action in- tended at this time. Mayor Roe asked that staff provide the City Council a copy of the bullet points used as part of their presentation; with Mr. Schwartz duly noting that request, and clarifying that they consisted of the final motion taken by the PWETC from their meeting minutes. Discussion among staff and Councilmembers included past, current and future Ramsey County cost-share policies, currently at 50% participation for construc- tion hard costs, and potential negotiations for rights-of-way and other project- specific issues and amenities; continued requirement for city responsibility for rights-of-way acquisition, depending on the availability of federal funds and the extent of impacts to those adjacent properties; and lack of interest to-date from Ramsey County in their pursuit of pathways on their roadways, all outside their most recent 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) with cities remaining re- sponsible for those amenities even along roads under the county's jurisdiction. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff had just received the most recent updated Ramsey County CIP that showed them participating financially in the County Road B-2 and Victoria Street improvements slated for Roseville. Mr. Schwartz opined that this indicated that the county had heard the city and were incorporating those items in their plans. Mr. Schwartz noted that this cost share policy was new to Ramsey County, and therefore, the City may need to expend funds upfront and