Laserfiche WebLink
regulations which are damaged as a result of direct contact by City snow removal equipment will <br />be temporarily repaired within 48 house of receiving notification of such damage. If the mailbox <br />cannot be temporarily repaired, a portable mailbox will be set in place so mail service will be <br />continued. The City will replace the damaged mailbox structure the following spring with a <br />standard No. 1 black, whit, or silver mailbox mounted on a four by four-inch treated post. <br />Residents whose mailboxes are knocked down as a result of direct contact by City snow removal <br />equipment may request $75 allowances, if they so choose, to replace the mailbox structures <br />themselves, relieving the City of any further obligation. In such cases, the City will provide <br />portable, temporary mailboxes until the following spring. Mailboxes, which are not installed to <br />City and U.S. Post Office regulations or are damaged due to snow deposited from plows (versus <br />being hit by City snow removal equipment), will not be replaced. The City is not responsible for <br />damage to media or paper boxes and will not repair them." <br /> <br />Mayor Garnec stated that the policy should state that the City will replace the mailbox with a <br />standard mailbox and post and if that is not what the resident wants then the City will give them <br />the money towards another mailbox. <br /> <br />Councihnember Kurak inquired as to how many mailboxes are typically hit during the winter. <br /> <br />Public Works Supervisor Reimer replied that last year approximately 15 mailboxes were hit last <br />year, but that was a high number because of all the snow. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson stated that she lives on a cul-de-sac and is already being required to <br />relocate her mailbox to the entrance of the cul-de-sac and she would not be happy with receiving <br />$45 from the City if her mailbox was knocked down. <br /> <br />There was a split decision amongst the Committee regarding the replacement cost. Two <br />members were in favor of $65 and the other two members were in favor of $75. <br /> <br />Consensus of the Committee was to direct staff to draft a policy and bring it back for Committee <br />consideration. <br /> <br />COMMITTEE INPUT <br /> <br />1) Future Rum River Bridge Crossing <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated that some time ago the City had on the comprehensive plan a <br />route through the Boy Scout property for a bridge crossing, which was not well received at that <br />time. Mr. Zimmerman felt that the bridge crossing is something they need in the City because <br />there are currently only two river crossings in the City. He felt that they should establish a route <br />on paper for the future. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec suggested that staff review the original study that had been done regarding that <br />crossing when the bridge on C.R. #116 was completed. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/September 18, 2001 <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />