CC_Minutes_2015_0223 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,February 23,2015 Page 8 Councilmember Laliberte sought clarification that there was no indication that the lowest rated intersections were dangerous in terms of safety,just slow. Mr. Culver responded affirmatively, suggesting that a lack of safety concerns may be due to the level of congestion along Fairview Avenue, with the roadway being flat and open with plenty of wide shoulders and two all-way stops; and unfortu- nately therefore limiting funding options. Mr. Culver noted the problems encoun- tered during p.m. peak drive times or when events occur or incidents on I-35W, creating even more significant congestion issues on Fairview Avenue. Councilmember McGehee questioned if there were any legal requirements obli- gating the City and its taxpayers to provide assistanced So correct traffic issues that are significantly under the purview of the County Mr. Culver responded that from the perspective of the roadway and corridor itself, they were maintained by Ramsey he corridor fornty and lr capacity andlty to monitor safety. However, maintain it, as well as to program Mr. Culver noted that, when a County project was undertaken, it included a local cost share and obligation for the municipal jurisdiction. Mr. Lux used Terrace Drive as a good example: City street, it a 50/50 cost tersected spl t with a County Road (Fairview Avenue) and therewould be be- tween the County and City of Roseville if a four-way signal was installed. How- ever, Mr. Lux acknowledged the foresight of City staff to retain a right-of-way on the west side, so when that does develop, it will keep future costs down. Mr. Lux also noted that funding for development-driven signals were often passed onto the developer by the City, with some cities escrowing funds from developments for that purpose. Mr. Lux advised that the County also required lead time to build such improvements into its budget similar to the City's budget process. In the past, Councilmember McGehee noted that the City had attempted to build in infrastructure costs into the development, but the concept had been legally challenged, and ultimately eliminated as an option. Councilmember McGehee questioned how Mr. Lux's proposal differed from what the City had already tried. Mr. Culver clarified that Councilmember McGehee was referencing originally proposed Traffic Impact Fees that had been legally and successfully challenged, with those fees intended for collection some time prior to and sometimes post- development. Mr. Culver noted that an example of a past success was with the WalMart development, when specific impacts to the adjacent road network was identified with a specific development, and required to pay for those improve- ments, similar to a development triggering installation of a traffic signal. Mr. Culver advised that in a lot omay s dependent onthoseo so, bmt most realized that the success of their development wa