03-15-83 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, MARCH 15, 1983 -5- --Eder - need to change sealcoating system so that costs can be assessed, Use of City funds is hindering the regular maintenance rotation program when funds have to be diverted for repair of areas more critical and not scheduled. Regular maintenance/seal- coating programs are a good dollar investment. Motion failed 2-3. Mazzara, Eder, and Fraser opposed, MIS/ Fraser/Mazzara approving a Patch and Overlay Program in Friedrich Heights and Bordner/Garner Farmettes. Discussion: --Dunn - would --like to see the job -done right when the work is done. Not much difference between the recommended Overlay program and the sealcoat alternate,- cost too h,ygh. Motion failed 3-2. Dunn and Morgan opposed. Motion failed for lack of a 4/5 majority. M/S/ Morgan/Mazzara to approve a Patch and Sealcoat Program for Kendr Additions and Tablyn Park, with sealcoating costs assessed to the benefitted property owners. Discussion: -- Fraser - opposed - believes the Patch and Overlay Program will be the most cost effective in the long run, Motion carried 4-1. Fraser opposed. 7. ENGINEER'S REPORT: C. 1983 Seal Coating Program - Bohrer recommended that the City participa e in the County Seal Coating Program. He reviewed a map identifieng streets designated in '.:the 6-year rotation program for sealcoating. He.noted that the areas planned exceed the $9,OOO budgeted for sealcoating. -- --Morgan - sealcoating is an area we should start assessing if the City cannot adequately budget enough money, in order to do the necessary sealcoating to preserve our streets for their normally designed life. M/S/P Morgan/Dunn adopting R-83-25, a Resolution ordering a - Feasibility Study on the sealcoating needs in the City-, after which the Council shall consider adopting an assessment policy for sealcoating. Discussion: --Bohrer - estimates for Patch and Sealcoat'.Program in Kendridge Additions and Tablyn Park were based on the City initiating a program - this would be higher than incorporating the work with the County. Suggested that these two additions be included in the County Program, assess- "the cost, which would be consistent with the Councils, intent to assess future sealcoating, and use some of the $9,000 sealcoat budget to do the maintenance and patching required in these two additions. Definitately a cost savings by contracting with the County., If Council decides to assess, all the streets planned for 1983 could be completed. --Whittaker - need to hold a feasibility hearing before assessing the work. Would be difficult to get this (',bne before the deadline fori.participation in the County program. --Dunn - agrees with the assessment concept. --Morgan - can call an assessment hearing after reviewing the Engineer's report on which City streets need sealcoating. Motion carried 5-0.