My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2018_10-23_PWETCpacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2018
>
2018_10-23_PWETCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/29/2018 10:15:16 AM
Creation date
11/29/2018 10:13:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/23/2018
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.
/
46
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
34 City Engineer Jesse Freihammer provided a brief review and update on projects <br />35 and maintenance activities listed in the staff report dated September 25, 2018. <br />36 <br />37 Mr. Mark Culver stated in regard to the Long Lake Project the most significant <br />38 changes besides a trail is the improvements at Long Lake Road and County Road <br />39 C. He stated currently Long Lake acts as an extension of the freeway offramp <br />40 between the southbound offramp and County Road C. The signal has been deficient <br />41 in design for quite some time and doesn't have a dedicated left turn phase for the <br />42 southbound traffic. That is a significant movement through the intersection and as <br />43 part of this project the County will be adjusting the geometries primarily on the <br />44 north approach to provide a duel left and a dedicate right with a through movement. <br />45 The southside is set up to align with the new geometries on the north side. That <br />46 should improve the operations of that intersection significantly. He noted that <br />47 would be the biggest improvement of the project, in his opinion. <br />48 <br />49 Member Wozniak thought it was great that the City took advantage of this project <br />50 to make the connection to the diagonal trail and the County Road C trail because <br />51 the Commission has looked at making that connection for a long time and as part <br />52 of the work the Commission has done on the trail management program he thought <br />53 the City has always looked at a chance to make that connection. <br />54 <br />55 Member Wozniak wondered when the project would be completed. <br />56 <br />57 Mr. Freihammer stated the project would start early 2019 and would take the <br />58 duration of the summer and should be completed by the end of summer 2019. <br />59 <br />60 Mr. Culver stated this project has been on the City's radar for some time and the <br />61 County has made a couple of applications for Federal funds for this project and the <br />62 County finally decided to get it done. <br />63 <br />64 qg&r. Culver noted for the abutting property owners along County Road C the City <br />65 will be proposing to levy assessments for this project. It is the City's special <br />66 assessment policy for full reconstructs. It is defined as when the City replaces all <br />67 of the curb and gutter on a roadway and reconstructing the full depth of pavement. <br />68 That is considered a reconstruct project and at that point the City does assess the <br />69 benefiting property owners if the property owners have not been assessed. In this <br />70 case, the property owners have not had an assessment for improvements on the <br />71 roadway. The Engineering Department will be putting together a feasibility study <br />72 which will be presented to the City Council in November and that will have <br />73 estimated assessments for the properties. <br />74 <br />75 Member Kruse asked if the no previous assessment is based on historical <br />76 information or is it based on the owner of the property. <br />77 <br />78 Mr. Culver indicated it was historical and does not matter if the property has <br />79 changed ownership or not. <br />Page 2 of 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.