My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-26-2001 CC
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
02-26-2001 CC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:46:36 PM
Creation date
8/29/2018 9:25:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
2/26/2001
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
2/26/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council February 12, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 16 <br /> <br /> <br />Public Works Director Ulrich indicated Staff believes there needs to be a policy and procedure <br />for improvements so that the residents feel the improvement is worthwhile and useful. Staff is <br />wondering where the objection to the projects lies and needs direction as to how far streets are <br />allowed to deteriorate before steps are taken to improve them. Staff is willing to do research on <br />funding but feels there is a need to develop a policy for the City. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Ulrich indicated he had compiled information from other cities in the area <br />as to how they handle street project improvements and gave a brief overview of that information <br />to Council. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney asked for a copy of the information presented to Council on other <br />cities. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Ulrich indicated he would provide a copy to Council Member Stigney. <br /> <br />Council Member Marty inquired as to how the pavement construction index number is arrived at. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Ulrich indicated City Staff was initially trained how to conduct surveys of <br />selected areas. There was a controlled area they went out to with supervision of the professional <br />giving the training. The last survey was done by a pavement management company and not by <br />City Staff. The condition of the pavement starts at 100 and then throughout the years various <br />cracks, ruts, etc., are all considered deficiencies which will deduct points from the overall rating <br />of 100. <br /> <br />Council Member Marty referred to the charts of streets and suggested eliminating no <br />improvement and go with the PCI. Give residents the option of passing for a year or two but <br />determine once the PCI reaches a certain number the street will be improved. <br /> <br />Council Member Thomas stated she believed residents were not able to pass for a year or two <br />and have any kind of planning for the street projects. A lot of residents don’t see the need to <br />spend the money for a street that does not appear to need repair. She then asked what type <br />assessment basis is used in Cities around Mounds View. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Ulrich indicated he has data from the past that indicates New Brighton <br />charges $900.00. He believes Spring Lake Park is around $1,200.00. <br /> <br />Council Member Thomas asked if the $900.00 was a flat fee or a percentage of the <br />improvements. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Ulrich stated the $900.00 is a flat fee. <br /> <br />Council Member Thomas indicated she would be interested to see how the fees and rates <br />correlate to how many miles the cities actually reconstruct. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.