My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 03/09/2000
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
2000
>
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 03/09/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2025 9:59:18 AM
Creation date
9/8/2003 3:15:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Date
03/09/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
112
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
the City may either need to remove the humps or pay the MSA funds back to the State if the <br />humps are to remain. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski presented a draf~ letter to Dysprosium Street residents for the Council's <br />review. <br /> <br />Councilmember Connolly suggested the letter indicate the City is in support of the residents and <br />identify available options along with the results of each option. She questioned the difference <br />between the term speed "humps" and speed "bumps." '-' <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated he would like the three options identified in the letter and to <br />assure it was understood the City was soliciting the resident's input on which option they <br />preferred. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson stated she believes "strings" do come attached with MSA funds and <br />you cannot install speed humps with those funds but the City did it anyway. Now, the City is <br />threatening residents that if the speed humps do not come out, the residents will be assessed for <br />the cost. <br /> <br />Councilmember Connolly explained that the speed humps were installed with the consensus of <br />the neighborhood and now they are being asked if the speed humps should remain and, if so, this <br />is the situation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson suggested a neighborhood meeting to inform the residents of what has <br />happened. She stated that she does not believe speed humps are good traffic control and she <br />would not have voted to install one. She stated that she does not support fighting taking them <br />out because she does not believe they should have been installed in the first place. <br />Councilmember Anderson stated that residents should have been told speed humps were not <br />legal to install on a MSA street. <br /> <br />Councilmember Connolly stated the suggestion is to listen to residents and receive their input. <br />She stated that it appears all agree the City should meet with the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that there was some basis upon which the City could <br />challenge this issue. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski explained the technical difference between a speed bump and a speed <br />hump which are recognized by traffic engineers as a traffic control measure. He explained that at <br />the time they were installed, there were guidelines which were followed. Since that time, <br />additional rules have been promulgated on the types of streets they should be used on, based on <br />traffic counts. City Engineer Jankowski stated that Dysprosium Street is probably one of the <br />streets that fits criteria that they shouId not be used on but this is a "gray" area. He clarified that <br />there is no written regulation against speed humps on MSA roadways but their design is usually <br />to move traffic quickly which speed humps discourage. <br /> <br />City Council/January 25, 2000 <br /> Page 26 of 35 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.