Laserfiche WebLink
there is a city trail along that area, Mr. Culver reported that the city would be <br /> considered a tenant and allotted two votes per parcel they owned that involved a <br /> trail, and part of the determination as to whether a noise wall was wanted or not. <br /> Mr. Culver noted other parcels along that corridor were commercial properties and <br /> he wasn't sure how they would vote on a noise wall since part of the benefit for <br /> their business was visibility that might be impaired by a noise wall, while hotel <br /> guests expressed frequent concerns with noise from the freeway. Mr. Culver <br /> advised that city staff would attempt to meet with those businesses to help the city <br /> in its determination of how to vote. <br /> At the request of Member Thurnau, Mr. Culver confirmed that all parcels along the <br /> corridor are developed, with possibly the exception of one parcel owned by Veritas <br /> currently open space for their firm. However, Mr. Culver advised he wasn't aware <br /> of any plans they might have to sell the parcel or expand their firm. <br /> Mr. Culver reviewed the construction staging of such a massive project that <br /> presented many challenges, similar to that experienced with the recent I-35E <br /> construction process, with current estimates for a four-year construction project. <br /> Mr. Culver advised that there would be subsequent discussion on hours of operation <br /> for contractors, location of grinding operations and concrete plant, and other <br /> considerations. From the Roseville perspective, Mr. Culver noted there would <br /> obviously be some impacts to the community, and reported that MnDOT had been <br /> informed by city staff that they did not want County Roads C and D closed at the <br /> same time in any one direction. Mr. Culver advised that MnDOT was taking that <br /> into consideration for staging and within their project specifications. Mr. Culver <br /> noted there would likely be some overnight or weekend closures during the <br /> construction process. <br /> Mr. Culver further addressed bridge reconstruction as part of the project; on/off <br /> ramp points, and how the project would be bid probably as a design/built project, <br /> with the agency releasing 30% plans that are initially incomplete, but providing <br /> initial desires, limitations and must-haves; with the winning contractor designing <br /> the remainder of the system (e.g. pavement type, storm sewer, etc.) all subject to <br /> MnDOT approval and contractors working with design firms to try to finish a <br /> design and assign a process during the project. Mr. Culver advised that typically <br /> this type of bid is faster and MnDOT prefers it as the contractor takes on more risk <br /> and therefore has more incentive to be creative and come up with new ideas and <br /> suggestions. However, Mr. Culver noted this could prove more difficult for local <br /> agencies, as they lost more control after the initial municipal consent at the <br /> beginning of the concept. Mr. Culver noted this design/build scenario may provide <br /> a reduced project schedule if the contractor proves more aggressive, and while it <br /> would require more resources on site, it would mean less risk with traffic controls. <br /> Mr. Culver advised that that project cost is projected at $205 million, with the state <br /> only able to identify half of that as funding sources; and having applied for <br /> additional federal funding to get the project done. At this point, Mr. Culver advised <br /> Page 10 of 14 <br />