Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />MARCH 25, 2002 <br /> <br />~i- <br /> <br />.";;':'~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant asked the residents in attendance 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 residents in attendance at this meeting <br />stated they believed all of the residents were in agreement that they wanted the cul-de-sacs <br />overlaid at this point in time. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated his concern was that the City's practice was that they assessed for half of the <br />streets to the residents benefiting from the streets, and the other half 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 more expense 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 fifteen years the City had ignored their cul-de-sacs and when they asked for <br />an overlay in 1995, the Council refused. He indicated the City had not maintained the streets. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson stated it was not logical that there would be two assessments for this <br />project - 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 overlay and then, in a relatively short period of <br />time, have to tear up the cul-de-sacs for the reconstruction. He agreed with the 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 />Councilmember 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 some overlays <br />during that period of time. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant asked how long the streets would last with an overlay. The City Engineer <br />replied an average of six years. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated the Council was essentially looking at a combined annual cost <br />difference of $1,500 more by doing the reconstruction. The City Engineer replied that the <br />feasibility study was not done yet, but he fully expected there would nothing left of the <br />bituminous once a milling machine went over it. He stated the cul-de-sacs were all patched right <br />now. He stated he believed the issues were structural problems below the surface. <br /> <br />Mr. Bujold stated, in terms of the amount of the material that would need to be removed if total <br />reconstruction were done, 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 terms of the patch- <br />work done on the two cul-de-sacs, he had contacted the street department to fill the potholes. He <br />expressed frustration that the City did not do regular maintenance on the streets. He stated he <br />was surprised last spring that there was so much patching done. He did not believe the amount to <br />be excessive. He indicated if the total reconstruction was delayed, the residents could start to <br />plan for that expense. He stated this was too short of a notice for a total reconstruction. He . <br />requested Council give the residents a one-year notice, which is in the street maintenance policy. <br />