Laserfiche WebLink
� MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,December 10,2012 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (18. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN(CIP), Continued) <br /> Bremer noted this is a loose planning document for the future and does not authorize any projects. If <br /> certain roads never make the list,that can be a point of contention. <br /> McMillan stated it is important for the residents who live on some of these roads to know that the City is <br /> looking at them and acknowledges that there are some roads that are in bad shape. McMillan noted the <br /> CIP helps the City identify improvements to roads at some point in the future and that she has a concern <br /> that some of these roads are being overlooked. <br /> Struve stated they are not ignoring any road in the City and that one of the attachments at the back of the <br /> CIP is the Pavement Management Plan,which was created in 2007 and updated in 2011. The Pavement <br /> Management Plan does rate the condition of every road in the City and looks at what type of work should <br /> be performed. <br /> Struve indicated part of the problem he has with the Public Works budget is that it does not have a steady <br /> road repair maintenance fund in order to prioritize some of these roads. Struve stated that is a major <br /> concern and perhaps should be discussed by the Council at some point in the future. <br /> McMillan noted the Pavement Management Plan was completed by the previous engineering fi�n and <br /> that she would like a second opinion on some of these evaluations that were done. <br /> Struve indicated they tend to evaluate all the roads on a two or three year cycle and that they then update <br /> the Pavement Management Plan based on that review. Struve noted the CIP and Pavement Management <br /> Plan are reviewed by Bolton&Menk and himself on a continuous basis. <br /> Printup noted a lot of the Hennepin County road projects that took place this year were mill and overlay <br /> and that it seems a lot of the discussion at the City level is reconstruction of the road. <br /> Struve indicated they are not opposed to overlay and that it depends on what the road bed underneath the <br /> pavement consists of,which dictates what the options are. All options will be discussed and reviewed to <br /> arrive at the most economical solution for the roadway. Struve indicated that until you get to the point of <br /> soil borings,they really do not know what option will work best for a particular roadway since they are all <br /> different. <br /> McMillan stated looking at ways to extend the life of the road should be part of the philosophy of the <br /> City. McMillan noted the City has a number of roads that require repair but that she does not see the City <br /> financially being able to do them all. <br /> Struve stated if the road is in borderline condition,the Council may want to do a mill and overlay rather <br /> than a full reconstruction. Struve indicated there are some options,which is why Hennepin County is <br /> doing some overlays. Struve stated he understands that the roads are deteriorating and that it generally <br /> costs more money to reconstruct them than what the City has available. <br /> Rahn stated that mill and overlay could be another column in the CIP. Once a road falls into the category <br /> of reconstruction that substantially raises the costs. Rahn stated he is basically talking about preventing <br /> - - - ------- ------- - -- - - --- --- Page 11 of 15 ---- ------- ----- --- -- -— - --- -- - <br />