My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Public Works Committee - 06/21/2022
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Public Works Committee
>
2022
>
Minutes - Public Works Committee - 06/21/2022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2025 2:51:01 PM
Creation date
7/22/2022 8:43:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Public Works Committee
Document Date
06/21/2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
City Engineer Westby replied that the reclaim is still the same in both the full depth and light <br /> options. He explained that in a full depth reclamation they remove some of the reclaim and put <br /> two lifts of pavement, whereas the light version removes less reclaim and puts one layer of <br /> pavement on top. <br /> Chairperson Riley referenced the cost difference, noting that the light version is less than half the <br /> cost. <br /> Civil Engineer II Feriancek stated that the reduced cost does not include the other improvements <br /> proposed, noting that the grade would not be adjusted and therefore it may not be as smooth and <br /> it would also remove the curb and gutter, culvert replacement, and other proposed improvements <br /> for the project. <br /> City Engineer Westby replied that the road would be a touch better than the originally constructed <br /> road. He explained that the City currently constructs roads to a seven-ton design load, whereas <br /> this would only be rated for perhaps five tons. He stated that 60 years is the typical lifespan for a <br /> new road, whereas this would be maybe between 25 and 40 years. <br /> Councilmember Woestehoff stated that doing these types of improvements could help to solve the <br /> bubble situation and spread some repairs over time and the lower cost would help to spread needed <br /> repairs to more areas. <br /> Councilmember Musgrove asked if this project was on the 2022 CIP. <br /> City Engineer Westby confirmed that this road was planned for 2022. <br /> Councilmember Musgrove stated that she could support the light version if there were a plan for <br /> how many roads could be placed into that category. She stated that she also has a desire to see the <br /> road project move forward as planned. <br /> Chairperson Riley asked if this neighborhood would be a good candidate for the light option. He <br /> asked all residential neighborhoods would be equally available for the light option or whether it <br /> would not be recommended for some roads. <br /> City Engineer Westby replied that it would depend upon the subgrade soils. He stated that it <br /> sounds like there were some poor subgrade sections in this area where soil corrections were going <br /> to be done and if that does not happen the road would fail faster. He stated that he would target <br /> the light option on streets that have better subgrade sections. <br /> Public Works Superintendent Riemer commented that the east side of the project basically only <br /> sees traffic from the people living there while the west side has a fair amount of cut-through traffic. <br /> Civil Engineer II Feriancek commented that the subgrade soils on the east side are worse and the <br /> subgrade on the west side are better, but people do cut through the west side to get to other <br /> neighborhoods. <br /> Public Works Committee/June 21, 2022 <br /> Page 6 of 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.