My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council Work Session - 03/19/2013
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council Work Session
>
2013
>
Minutes - Council Work Session - 03/19/2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2025 11:57:20 AM
Creation date
5/6/2013 1:48:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council Work Session
Document Date
03/19/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
Acting Mayor Backous asked if additional discussion should be postponed until the numbers are <br />refined. <br />Councilmember Riley supported receiving additional public input, noting a survey of 300 is not <br />very many residents. He would like residents to be asked if they are willing to pay "X" dollars a <br />month for a road fund with the understanding that some day it will be their road. <br />Acting Mayor Backous indicated the City paid $43,000 for the survey of 300 people that was <br />conducted by a professional surveying company. He stated that survey, theoretically, reflected <br />the opinion of the entire City. He agreed with the need for additional public input. <br />City Administrator Ulrich asked whether this plan can be refined, considering the time the City <br />has left with the interim engineering firm. <br />Interim Engineer Nelson stated they can dedicate some time to it but they still have significant <br />other responsibilities with the Riverdale Drive project, sealcoat plans and specs, and Armstrong <br />Boulevard bike path. He stated he will let the Council determine what the priority is. Interim <br />Engineer Nelson noted that in any case, assumptions will still have to be made because no one <br />can predict how long a road will last since it is dependent on weather, maintenance, and other <br />conditions. He noted that planned overlays and reclaim/paves will stretch the life of some roads <br />15 -20 years and eliminate the big bump in the chart. That information can be provided in April. <br />Councilmember LeTourneau noted that scenario is pushing him to make a decision to prioritize <br />but he cannot do so because he does not have enough information. He stated he understands the <br />constraint on resources so it is a difficult decision. Councilmember LeTourneau asked what is <br />the Council's "stomach" for this and what does it have to do. He noted there is $1 3 million in <br />this year's budget so the Council can step back to gather a bigger project and discuss it later this <br />year, in how to pin down priorities. Or, he would ask if roads will crumble and turn into <br />sinkholes during this year. Councilmember LeTourneau asked what the current condition is and <br />to what date can this discussion be pushed to get additional information. <br />Acting Mayor Backous stated this issue has been pushed back for too long and decisions now <br />need to be made. He stated the Council needs to take a leadership role and that may involve <br />making a decision that is not comfortable because the longer it goes unresolved, the more money <br />will be needed. <br />Councilmember LeTourneau asked whether the Council can make this decision in six months <br />after new tooling and refining of numbers. <br />Councilmember Elvig stated the only draw back in waiting is if we do work this year, it is under <br />the auspice for which the City took in funds to pay for it. If the Council does not make a <br />different decision, the rule now is to assess. However, those property owners will not support <br />the assessment and petition against the project. Councilmember Elvig stated it is known that <br />Ramsey has a road problem and this Council has to decide to spend between $1.5 million and $3 <br />million each year to address it. He felt it would be closer to $1.5 million but would like to know <br />the range for the high and low numbers. On public input, he noted the City would be saying it <br />City Council Work Session / March 19, 2013 <br />Page 12 of 16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.