Minutes - Public Works Committee - 02/19/2008

Home

Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Olson and Dehen. Voting No: None. Case #3: Review Results of Dirt Driveway Paving Survey City Engineer Jankowski reported that staff had received several comments back with regard to the dirt driveway paving survey. Promoting the paving of dirt driveways within the City has been a topic of discussion since June, 2007, and most recently at the November Public Works Committee meeting. At the latest meeting, the Committee expressed a desire to determine the degree of interest in paving by approving the mailing of a survey to be sent to properties with one or more unpaved or partially paved driveways. The post office delivered the survey to 455 properties (several were returned) and 174 responses were received. Of the responses, five reported that their driveways are now paved or are in the process of being paved, and two reported that they live on unpaved streets. Responses in general were roughly 2/3 expressed a strong disinterest in paving their driveways, while 15 percent expressed favorable comments. Fifteen percent responded "in-between". Mr. Jankowski continued that one of the questions solicited why the driveway was not paved and, in addition to that, we asked for other reasons. Responses included that a dirt or gravel driveway was more environmentally friendly; Class 5 or conbit should be considered adequate, several anticipated relocating current driveway or selling to a developer, the unpaved drive is a second drive with minimal use, they anticipated truck traffic which would damage a paved drive, some felt a rock or stone driveway was aesthetic, the street drains onto the lot; paving the driveway would exacerbate the problem, paving would damage tree roots and kill trees and paved driveways would be damaged by snowmobiles. The final question of the survey was asking for other comments. Ninety-three people of 174 responded. Mr. Jankowski summarized the content of the comment responses as follows: The majority of the people (20) basically stated the City should have other priorities, the second highest response (16) was that they can't afford paving, 13 expressed concern over increased taxes, 10 people felt unpaved driveways shouldn't be a government concern, 10 people don't agree with the benefits stated, six objected to resources spent on the survey, six felt that Class 5 or conbit should be considered adequate, four responses were that unpaved driveways are not a problem, four felt that paved driveways would ruin the rural look, four felt that unpaved driveways are more eco friendly, three cited long driveways, three live on a County Road, three prefer concrete driveways, three felt that their secondary driveway should not be required to be paved, three suggested that the cost cited in the survey letter was too high, three asked for a subsidy from the City, three felt that a paved driveway would exacerbate a drainage problem, two felt the program cost savings would need to be significant, two plan to pave in the near future anyway, one suggested a three to five year assessment, one would like additional information and one response indicated they had a shared driveway. Mr. Jankowski reported that there were some positive comments. Three responses said they would prefer to have concrete and three said they would do it with a subsidy from the City. It was pointed out that a significant cost savings would be expected. Mayor Gamec stated that the City has tried this before. He felt that the City should pave the street and forget about the driveway - let the residents do what they want. This will turn into a nightmare and staff will have to spend a lot of time on this. Public Works Committee - February 19, 2008 Page 3 of9