Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />MARCH 25, 2002 <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant askcd the rcsidcnts in attcndance at tonight's meeting if the remaining <br />neighbors would also be in agreement with the cul-de-sacs being overlaid and not reconstructed <br />with the possibility of assessed for two projects. The rcsidcnts in attendance at this meeting <br />stated they believed all of the residcnts werc in agreement that they wanted the cul-de-sacs <br />overlaid at this point in time. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated his concern was that the City's practice was that they assessed for half ofthe <br />streets to the residents benefiting from the streets, and the other hal f came out of the General <br />Fund which all residents contributed to, and if they only did overlay now and reconstruction at a <br />future date, that would lead to morc expcnse to the taxpayers. He stated these cul-de-sacs came <br />in very low on the PCI, and he believed it was time to do the reconstruction improvement. <br /> <br />Mr. Drewa stated for fiftecn years the City had ignored their cul-de-sacs and when they askcd for <br />an overlay in 1995, the Council refused. He indicated the City had not maintaincd the streets. <br /> <br />Councill1lember Larson stated it was not logical that there would be two assessments for this <br />proj ect - one for an overlay now and one for a reconstruction in the future. He stated he did not <br />believe the City should spend the money for an ovcrlay and then, in a relatively short period of <br />time, have to tear up thc cul-de-sacs for the reconstruction. He agreed with thc arguments the <br />residents had, and he wished the City would have maintained the streets better, but the issue <br />. tonight was that the streets needed to be repaired, and what made the most financial sense. <br /> <br />Couneilmember Grant asked how long the streets would last with full reconstruction. The City <br />Engineer replied a full reconstruction should last approximately 40 years, with somc overlays <br />during that period of time. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant asked how long the streets would last with an overlay. The City Engineer <br />replied atl average of six years. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant statcd the Council was essentia]]y looking at a combined annual cost <br />difference of $1,500 more by doing the reconstruction. The City Engineer rcplied that the <br />feasibility study was not done yet, but he fully expected there would nothing left of the <br />bituminous once a mi]]ing machinc wcnt over it. He stated the cuI-de-sacs were a]] patched right <br />now. Hc statcd he belicved the issues were structural problems below the surface. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Bujold stated, in terms ofthc amount of the materia] that would need to be removed iCtotal <br />reconstruction were donc, they were not talking about a street that had a lot of traffic. He <br />indicated he did not believe they needed to haul in a lot of sand. He stated, in tenns of the patch- <br />work donc on thc two cul-de-sacs, he had contacted the strcct department to fi]] the potholes. lIe <br />expressed frustration that the City did not do regular maintenance on thc streets. He staled he <br />was surprised last spring that there was so much patching done. He did not believe the amount to <br />be excessive. lIe indicated if the total reconstmction was delayed, the rcsidents could stm1 to <br />plan for that expense. He statcd this was too short of a noticc for a total reconstruction. He <br />requested Council give the residents a one-year noticc, which is in the street maintcnance policy. <br />