2016-10-25_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

402 there is a city trail along that area, Mr. Culver reported that the city would be 403 considered a tenant and allotted two votes per parcel they owned that involved a 404 trail, and part of the determination as to whether a noise wall was wanted or not. 405 Mr. Culver noted other parcels along that corridor were commercial properties and 406 he wasn't sure how they would vote on a noise wall since part of the benefit for 407 their business was visibility that might be impaired by a noise wall, while hotel 408 guests expressed frequent concerns with noise from the freeway. Mr. Culver 409 advised that city staff would attempt to meet with those businesses to help the city 410 in its determination of how to vote. 411 412 At the request of Member Thurnau, Mr. Culver confirmed that all parcels along the 413 corridor are developed, with possibly the exception of one parcel owned by Veritas 414 currently open space for their firm. Howeyr, Mr. Culver advised he wasn't aware 415 of any plans they might have to sell the parcel or expand their firm. 416 417 Mr. Culver reviewed the construction staging of such a massive project that 418 presented many challenges, similar to that experienced with the recent I -35E 419 construction process, with current estimates for a four-year construction project. 420 Mr. Culver advised that there would be subsequent discussion on hours of operation 421 for contractors, location of grinding operations and concrete plant, and other 422 considerations. From the Roseville perspective, Mr. Culver noted there would 423 obviously be some impacts to the community, and reported that MnDOT had been 424 informed by city staff that they did not want County Roads C and D closed at the 425 same time in any one direction. Mr. Culver advised that MnDOT was taking that 426 into consideration for staging and within their project specifications. Mr. Culver 427 noted there would lik be some overnight or weekend closures during the 428 construction pr ss. 429 430Cramp r further addressed bridge reconstruction as part of the project; on/off 431 ts, and how the project would be bid probably as a design/built project, 432 gency releasing 30% plans that are initially incomplete but providing 433 initial desires, limitations and must -haves; with the winning contractor designing 434 the remainder of the system (e.g. pavement type, storm sewer, etc.) all subject to 435 MnDOT approval and contractors working with design firms to try to finish a 436 design and assign a process during the project. Mr. Culver advised that typically 437 this type of bid is faster and MnDOT prefers it as the contractor takes on more risk 438 and therefore has more incentive to be creative and come up with new ideas and 439 suggestions. However, Mr. Culver noted this could prove more difficult for local 440 agencies, as they lost more control after the initial municipal consent at the 441 beginning of the concept. Mr. Culver noted this design/build scenario may provide 442 a reduced project schedule if the contractor proves more aggressive, and while it 443 would require more resources on site, it would mean less risk with traffic controls. 444 445 Mr. Culver advised that that project cost is projected at $205 million, with the state 446 only able to identify half of that as funding sources; and having applied for 447 additional federal funding to get the project done. At this point, Mr. Culver advised Page 10 of 14