CC MINUTES 06111974 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• -4- Mr. 4-Mr. Gerald Dunphy, 3104 36th Avenue N.E. wanted to know why Minneapolis residents • only paid 15% of the costs of constructing new roads or maintenance expenses and was informed that Minneapolis used general fund monies for said purpose many years ago and were not therefore restricted by the levy limitation for such costs. When he questioned how much a machine which could handle all the crack filling would cost he was told that although no one at the meeting knew what it was, it was speculated that it was prohibitive since even the State Highway Department con- tracted for road repair and it was also pointed out that the cost of such a machine would have to include the manpower to operate it. Councilman Stauffer mentioned that there had been a discussion at the last Council meeting of the possibility of an increase in traffic on 36th Avenue resulting from the upgrading of 37th Avenue by Ramsey County and a consideration of the alternative of letting the repair go until that project is completed and gambling that the roadbed would not deteriorate completely before 37th was open again. Mayor Miedtke then presented a resolution which was seconded by Councilman Stauffer. None of the Council was against a comprehensive plan for the whole community and most of them defended the Preliminary Report and others like it from which they could get information regarding the conditions of the streets of the city. Mayor Miedtke said an urban planner could give advice on traffic but would not be able to help replacing deteriorated streets. Councilman Sundland Felt a public hearing on all street improvements and mainten- ance measures was necessary. He told the residents present "What you are really saying is "Show us a plan and maybe we'll buy it." Councilman Stauffer felt there had to be some way of letting the community know "what our plans are", but felt people didn' t pay much attention to publication of general plans and only became interested in projects which directly affected them. She expressed her belief that the public also had a responsibility to keep them- selves informed on the communications the City tried to get to them through newspaper articles, official publications and the newsletters which accompany the billing statements. Councilman Haik told the group that the Council had requested the Preliminary Report from the Engineer and pointed out other community planning reports which were not used once they were drawn up. She said she was against spreading the assessments for all improvements over the entire community after only one public hearing attended by a small proportion of the residents. She also pointed out the community wide plan which would result from the revision of the zoning ordinance by the Planning Board. C.W. Kirk, 3612 Penrod Lane, still doubted that 36th Avenue "had to be improved in such a manner" and felt "The street was no different than it has been". He also questioned why a decision was not being made that evening by the Council and was told that the letter he had been sent explained the Council was unable to make a decision until they were in receipt of further information regarding soil borings and MSA funding. Councilman Stauffer stated that the Maintenance Department had given them some information on maintenance costs which would help them arrive at a decision. • Councilman Sauer then stated he wanted to amend the Mayor's resolution to read that 100 % of the improvements be assessed on the abutting property" and Councilman Stauffer felt that the percentage of assessment should not be stated in the resolution. She wanted more background information on assessing. Mr. Dulgar told