Agenda Packets - 2000/02/28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council February 14, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 Director of Public Works Ulrich stated residents who request additional amenities on projects, such as curb and gutter, additional stormsewer that may be associated with that curb and gutter, sidewalks, trails, etc, would be assessed 25 percent of the entire additional costs. He explained that if 51 percent of the people on the project desired the addition of curb and gutter, this would include the entire associated costs with curb and gutter, such additional staking, possible cuts and fills in elevation to obtain proper drainage, grading, and the like. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated Item A.3 indicates that 100 percent of all turnback funds received from Ramsey County will be applied to new construction or pavement costs of the road that was received. He noted that currently there is only one road remaining for which the City would receive turnback funds from Ramsey County, and that is County Road H-2. Director of Public Works Ulrich advised that a substantial portion of Item B contains language, which indicates that the resident will be assessed for 100 percent of the street project, which is basically the pavement surface and the base. He advised that the Council would approve a mean that the City would attempt to maintain, according the City’s Pavement Condition Index Rating, with a 100 rating indicating new pavement, and a rating of 0, being an unpaved road. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated staff has received the results of the Pavement Management Survey that was conducted a few weeks prior, and would be tabulating that information, and incorporating it into some maps. He explained that the City would attempt to maintain a pavement index based upon what is affordable, can be maintained, and is an acceptable level of pavement. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated that based upon the Pavement Condition Index ratings, a certain rehabilitation method might, or might not be recommended for a particular project. He explained that if a pavement has a rating of 70, it would be possible that an overlay would resolve any deficiencies, or improve the structure and the ride quality, however, if the rating dropped down to 50, a mill and overlay might be required. Director of Public Works Ulrich advised that these considerations that would fluctuate from year to year, and section by section. He indicated that once a pavement is at a certain level, there is basically only one way to rehabilitate it, and that would be to grind it up, put it back down and do an overlay over it. He stated that based upon the recommendations, staff would not recommend an overlay on a pavement that has a 30 Pavement Condition Index rating, because this would be money wasted, and would result assessments to property owners for a lesser project, when something stronger was necessary. Director of Public Works Ulrich stated Item C pertains to sidewalks, and the additional language indicates that sidewalks which are requested beyond those contemplated on the City’s sidewalk and trail plan, would be assessed at 25 percent of the cost, to the affected property owners. He advised that the language specifically states “Sidewalks are generally installed on the City’s major streets, or in accordance with the City’s sidewalk and trail plan, which will connect several neighborhoods and community attractions in a logical pattern; these improvements will not be assessed to the abutting property owners.” Director of Public Works Ulrich stated Item J indicates “In projects involving new street construction and mill and overlays, mailboxes will be grouped on gang posts in numbers logical to the spacing required. This practice will insure the proper placement of mailboxes, reduce