07/13/93 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I Mr. Jankowski stated this was done with the approval of Anoka County Highway Dept. as being a workable inttrseotion angle. He did point out that a major constraint within the intersection design was the goal bf avoiding disturbance to the DNR protected wetland in the vicinity. Councilmember Zimmerman expressed concern of sacrificing safety in exchange for wetland avoidance. Mayor Gilbe~tson commented on the need to assure proper sight distance with the relocated intersection of County Road #5 with Dysprosium Sneer N.W. Mr. Sankowski said that he would pass along the comments of the Road and Bridge Committee and the sko~h to Doug Fisher of the Anoka County Highway Department, who would be reviewing tho sketch with other members of his staff. The goal of this process would be to establish a reasonably well defined concept plan for the intersection relocation which would have the approval of file City, County and State. Case #3: Street Paving Program City Engine4n: Jankowski stated that at previous Road and Bridge Committee meetings there was a consensus that a priority should be placed on encouraging the paving of existing dirt and gravel roads. He Pr0sented a map showing the remainder of the roads in Ramsey that are still dirt/gravel. Some of the meets shown are future MSA Streets and will therefore be upgraded with MSA funds in the future, i He explained that some of the roads should be vacated and that some need to be pursued for paving with financing coming from the benefitted residences. He suggested shifting the policy foir relying on a petition of the residents and have City Council initiate individual property by -~!Sths vote. He felt that some roads may not be getting paved simply because none of the neighbors (feel strongly enough to start a petition or do not wish to be identified as the instigator of the project; The petition could still be "shot down" with the number of signatures needed to stop a project; He stated another option would be to make an educational effort to let residents know how &~ prOcess of paving streets work. He suggested developing an informational flyer and sending i~ to property owners who reside along dirt streets. The flyer would contain the range of costs assessed on past street pavings. Another suggestion was to modify past City policy for financing strek~ t paving to allow the City to pick up a share of the cost. Mr. Sankowski stated that he did an analysis:about a year ago comparing grading the dirt streets to the maintenance costs for the bituminous streets and thc dirt stxeets cost double thc amount. Mayor Gil~n suggested maybe assessing the property owner aceo~gly. Councflmember Zimmennan stated that the people on the dirt streets also contribute to the 50% of street assessments'paid out by the City. Mr. Jankowsld felt that issue should be factored in also. City Adminis .ttator $chroeder suggested, upon City Council approval, that a feasibility study be done by the Bt~gineering Department to find out exactly what exists and what needs paving. Mr. Jankow _~_' inquired if Mr. Sehroeder means paving all the remaining dirt/gravel roads to which Mr. Sehix)eaier replied there will be exceptions, such as City utilities coming in soon, etc. Mr. Jankowski stated that to do an accurate feasibility study, the areas have to be reviewed. Mr. Schroeder suggested this could be done with the 1994 Street Program. Couneilmembzr 7~iromerman stated that maybe the City could use some of the landfill funds to pay for the study, i He felt that everyone in the City should be notified of how expensive it is to maintain unpaved roads and that the grader is getting old and will be costly to replace. Road & Bridge Committee/July 13, 1993 Page 2 of 3