Laserfiche WebLink
City <br />Program Overview <br />Lessons Learned <br />Key Discussion Points <br />Final Approach <br />Lino Lakes <br />Replace 11 miles of pavement and improved <br />Engaging citizens is <br />Emphasis on current road <br />- Despite public engagement and <br />maintenance on all other 73 miles <br />important to pursuing a <br />conditions and the <br />a well -crafted plan, city officials <br />Cost: $28 million <br />plan <br />necessity of reconstruction <br />and the public could not reach <br />Proposed 10 -year project <br />Building consensus <br />(including comparisons to <br />consensus on how to move <br />Initial resident concerns: Cost of assessments; lack <br />between public officials <br />other cities and use of <br />forward. <br />of need <br />and the general public <br />photos) <br />After residents petitioned city proposals for road <br />is necessary for <br />Emphasis on streets' value <br />reconstruction, the city created a citizen task force to <br />implementation <br />as a citywide asset and the <br />review the city charter, which outlined petition <br />Public information <br />potential benefits of <br />guidelines. The city presented its recommendations <br />should be educational, <br />investment <br />to the task force by using a Pavement Management <br />meaningful to property <br />"Reasonable, accountable, <br />Report (i.e. presentation that outlined current <br />owners and provide a <br />and organized plan" <br />pavement conditions and recommendations). The <br />clear case for moving <br />(including a clear break <br />task force accepted the recommendations and <br />forward <br />down of spending by year <br />proposed a charter amendment that would allow the <br />and area) <br />city to move forward as planned. However, the <br />Mayor rejected the amendment and all other <br />proposals since have been rejected by residents. <br />Minnetonka <br />Improve maintenance on all city roads (250 miles) <br />- Keeping residents <br />Emphasis on poor road <br />Ultimately, the city implemented <br />Cost: approx. $24 million <br />informed was essential <br />conditions and the need for <br />its plan without direct resident <br />10 -year program <br />to smooth plan <br />reconstruction (including <br />approval. <br />Approved in 2005; to be completed in 2014 <br />implementation. The <br />comparisons to other cities) <br />The final plan included the use <br />Resident concerns: Poor road conditions <br />city provided <br />Explain why existing <br />of thin overlays and complete <br />Research did not find instances in which property <br />information in its <br />funding wasn't enough (e.g. <br />reconstruction, and required <br />owners petitioned against/prevented city projects. <br />monthly newsletter, in <br />it hasn't kept pace with <br />homeowners to pay their portion <br />The city appeared to enact its road revitalization plan <br />local media and online. <br />rising maintenance and <br />of funds in a $1.2 million tax levy <br />without significant dispute from residents or enacting <br />Focus communications <br />construction costs) <br />(about $6.75 per month in <br />a citizen task force. <br />on the resident's <br />Focus on long-term, cost- <br />property taxes per homeowner <br />perspective <br />effective solutions (e.g. thin <br />during the 10 years). <br />Illustrate the cost to <br />overlays) <br />residents in an easy to <br />Illustrate that the city was <br />understand way <br />proactive before seeking <br />more taxpayer help <br />Emphasis on value and <br />return for investment <br />Reasonable cost to <br />homeowners (e.g. compare <br />cost to fast food meal per <br />month) <br />Ramsey Road Maintenance Research <br />March 30, 2011 <br />