Minutes - Public Works Committee - 04/21/2009

Home

COMMITTEE BUSINESS Case #1: Consider Comments Received at Public Hearing for 2009 SMP Assistant City Engineer Steve Jankowski explained that this case is being presented tonight as a result of a Public Hearing held on March 10, 2009 where the property owners were present to express their concerns relating to two bituminous overlay projects. Mr. Jankowski wanted to discuss one of the policies that govern the street maintenance program. That policy states projects involving streets which have had previous proposed maintenance projects defeated by petition shall be ineligible to receive the Cities 50% contribution if the project requires more expensive maintenance. Mr. Jankowski is asking the Committee if staff should express that policy to the property owners. Public Works Director/Principal City Engineer Brian Olson wanted to comment on the Pacer manual that was being passed around. He explained this is something the Street Maintenance Supervisor, Grant Riemer goes through and reviews pavement conditions with 10 being the best and all the way to 1 being the need for reconstruction. In the 162nd and 164th 09-11 project, there is a condition that resembles very close to the rating of a 3 on a scale of 1 - 10. Councilmember McGlone wanted clarification of what exactly the petitions were asking for. Assistant City Engineer Jankowski responded the petition is to reject the proposal for Barthel's Rum River 2nd Addition improvement Project 09-11 bituminous overlay. Councilmember McGlone asked what the neighborhood would like to see happen. Mr. David Rauen, 5713 164th Avenue NW, a property owner in the Barthel's Rum River 2nd addition responded patch and repair any damages and not have a complete overlay and would rather have a sealcoat to get some longevity out of it. Councilmember McGlone feels it is a City road and patching is not cost effective. Vice Chair Dehen stated it is a basic City function to take care of the roads and if they are not repaired in an orderly fashion they are going to break down significantly and cost everybody in the City more. He feels we need to listen to the City staff recommendation to go forward with the improvement project. Public Works Director/Principal City Engineer Olson wanted to express it is prudent that it is explained to the petitioners by letter that this is going to City Council on April 28th and if we accept that petition it cannot be taken back again. They need to understand the policy that if there is a larger project being a reconstruction necessary within a year or two that they are going to be responsible for those costs. The interpretation of the current policy needs further discussion at a later date. Public Works Committee / April 21, 2009 Page 2 of9