Laserfiche WebLink
JUSTIFICATION <br />Residents of the City of Little Canada have petitioned their City Council <br />for a bikepath on Centerville Road. The City Council has accepted the <br />petition and requested the County "to make such an improvement." <br />The petition asks that Centerville Road be improved in conjunction with <br />Mn /DOT's Little Canada Road bridge widening project (over 135E) in which <br />the County will participate. We propose to overlay Centerville Road from <br />north of Little Canada Road at the point of touchdown of the bridge <br />widening project to Edgerton Street during the 1985 construction season. <br />We believe there are several alternatives the County could pursue in <br />response to the City's request: <br />1. Do nothing. <br />2. Construct the project as requested by the petitioners with <br />County forces and funds. (This would add $66,000 to the cost <br />of the overlay project. Also, this would postpone other <br />projects scheduled for 1985 construction because of the time <br />required for the bikelane work.) <br />3. Construct the project as requested by the petitioners if Little <br />Canada pays for the additional widening on the overlay project. <br />4. Develop an improvement project, hold required public hearing, <br />let a contract and assess the benefited property owners using <br />the process of Statute 429. (This is an avenue now open to <br />Ramsey County; however, the Public Works Department would prefer <br />to continue negotiating.with the cities for cost participation.) <br />5. Deny the request and construct the overlay as proposed. <br />We recorrmrend Alternative 5 for these reasons: <br />1. The requested bikelane is not on the Ramsey County Regional <br />Recreational Bikeway System Plan. <br />2. If we enlarge the overlay project to include a bikelane, we <br />will also enlarge our maintenance responsibilities. <br />3. If Centerville Road is reconstructed in the future, we would <br />include the bikelane in the project because once a facility <br />exists it has been perpetuated in reconstruction at no cost <br />to the municipality. <br />4. We believe the County could be setting a precedent for future <br />petitions of this.nature. <br />5. We believe the City should consider providing a detached path <br />more specifically, a sidewalk. <br />pfs:js <br />Att: Regional Recreational Bikeway System Sketch <br />Maintenance Engineer Report <br />Planner and Coordinating Engineer Reports <br />Little Canada Resolution 85 -4 -157 <br />Petition <br />Sketch <br />