01-14-2013 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 10, 2012 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 15 (18. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP), Continued) Bremer noted this is a loose planning document for the future and does not authorize any projects. If certain roads never make the list, that can be a point of contention. McMillan stated it is important for the residents who live on some of these roads to know that the City is looking at them and acknowledges that there are some roads that are in bad shape. McMillan noted the CIP helps the City identify improvements to roads at some point in the future and that she has a concern that some of these roads are being overlooked. Struve stated they are not ignoring any road in the City and that one of the attachments at the back of the CIP is the Pavement Management Plan, which was created in 2007 and updated in 2011. The Pavement Management Plan does rate the condition of every road in the City and looks at what type of work should be performed. Struve indicated part of the problem he has with the Public Works budget is that it does not have a steady road repair maintenance fund in order to prioritize some of these roads. Struve stated that is a major concern and perhaps should be discussed by the Council at some point in the future. McMillan noted the Pavement Management Plan was completed by the previous engineering firm and that she would like a second opinion on some of these evaluations that were done. Struve indicated they tend to evaluate all the roads on a two or three year cycle and that they then update the Pavement Management Plan based on that review. Struve noted the CIP and Pavement Management Plan are reviewed by Bolton & Menk and himself on a continuous basis. Printup noted a lot of the Hennepin County road projects that took place this year were mill and overlay and that it seems a lot of the discussion at the City level is reconstruction of the road. Struve indicated they are not opposed to overlay and that it depends on what the road bed underneath the pavement consists of, which dictates what the options are. All options will be discussed and reviewed to arrive at the most economical solution for the roadway. Struve indicated that until you get to the point of soil borings, they really do not know what option will work best for a particular roadway since they are all different. McMillan stated looking at ways to extend the life of the road should be part of the philosophy of the City. McMillan noted the City has a number of roads that require repair but that she does not see the City financially being able to do them all. Struve stated if the road is in borderline condition, the Council may want to do a mill and overlay rather than a full reconstruction. Struve indicated there are some options, which is why Hennepin County is doing some overlays. Struve stated he understands that the roads are deteriorating and that it generally costs more money to reconstruct them than what the City has available. Rahn stated that mill and overlay could be another column in the CIP. Once a road falls into the category of reconstruction that substantially raises the costs. Rahn stated he is basically talking about preventing Item #02 - CC Agenda - 01/14/2013 Approval of Council Minutes 12/10/2012 [Page 11 of 15]