05/14/96 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Councilmember Beyer suggested maybe a 50/50 split on the guardrails. Mr. Jankowski responded that they do not cost a lot, but if there are questions about funding, we need to let Mr. Phillips know that he should come back to us. Case #4: Receive 1997 Anoka County Five-Year Highway Improvement Plan City Engineer Jankowski explained that this case is simply to receive the 1997 Anoka County Five- Year Highway Improvement Plan. The only major project scheduled within Ramsey over the next five years includes the extension of County Road #116 from County Road #56 to County Road #83 in 1998. Major projects listed, for years beyond 2001, identified in the plan, include the reconstruction of the intersection of County State Aid Highway #5 and County Road #116 and the reconstruction of CSAH #27 (179th Lane from C.R. #7 to T.H. #47). These projects represent no change from the 1996 Five-Year Plan except for minor adjustments in the estimated project costs. Mr. Jankowski stated that this case requires no action. Case #5: Consider Policy Regarding Transportation Impact Fees City Engineer Jankowski recalled that at the last Road and Bridge Committee meeting, staff presented a Transportation Impact Fee Policy. There were some reservations about allowing the use of the fees for on-road trails. We requested we be allowed to present you with options as to how much or how little trail will be funded. Mr. Jankowski presented the following options: Option 1: The construction of on-road trails identified on the City's park and trail plan. Eligible trails shall only be those along State, County, City MSA or collector thoroughfares. Typical eligible roadways would include T.H. #47, all County roadways, Variolite, 167th Avenue, 153rd/155th Avenue, Sunwood Drive, Dysprosium, McKinley Street, Roanoke, 156th Lane, and Juniper Ridge Drive. Option 2: The construction of on-road trails identified on the City's park and trail plan within the area of the City, including and south of 153/155 Avenue and including and west of T.H. #47. Eligible trails shall only be those along State, County, and City MSA or collector thoroughfares. Typical eligible roadways would include T.H. #47, C.S.A.H. #5, C.R. #56, C.R. #57, C.R. #83 south of 1543/155, 153/155, Sunwood Drive, Dysprosium Street and McKinley Street. Option 3: The construction of on-road trails located on State, County, and City MSA streets where the posted speed limit is 50 miles per hour or greater. Typical eligible roadways would include: T.H. #47, and all County Roads, 153/155 from T.H. #47 to T.H. #10, and Variolite. Option 4: The construction of on-road trails on the following State, County, and City MSA streets. Eligible roadways would include: (a list inserted by the Committee). Councilmember Zimmerman felt that the trails would be nice if the City had the money but he couldn't see how we will fund them when we can hardly find enough money to repair the streets we have. Councihnember Beyer stated that it's hard to justify trail construction when we have potholes in our streets. She asked why there's always money to construct trails when we can't keep up our streets. She strongly opposed using the Impact Fee for this as she felt there were far more important things to construct with this money than park trails. She did not want the mention of trails in this policy. We have T.H. #47 that needs consideration now - the trails can wait. Councilmember Zimmennan agreed and stated that trails should wait until we are in better shape with regard to our collector or arterial streets. City Administrator Schroeder stated that part of the justification for having the Transportation Impact Fee in that amount was assuming there would be the construction of these trails. These are not purported to be recreational trails - they are safety trails so people do not have to walk on T.H. Road and Bridge Committee/May 14, 1996 Page 4 of 5