Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Streets Paving topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables paving and vacation decision for Cedar Street, directs staff to gather information
Summary
A request to pave Cedar Street from Tamarack Street to the alley and to vacate the adjoining alley was discussed at length. Council members raised funding, PASER rating, and private‑benefit concerns and voted to move the item to the next regular meeting with staff directed to collect more information.
The Ishpeming City Council discussed a resident’s long‑standing request to pave Cedar Street from Tamarack Street to the alley and whether to vacate the adjoining alley. After extended debate about funding sources, road condition assessments and the potential for creating a private benefit, the council voted to move the matter to its next regular meeting and directed public works and zoning staff to compile additional information.
Council members said the issue had been raised repeatedly by the property owner, identified in the meeting as Mr. Beltrami, who owns both a business and a home that front the end of the street. Staff recommended paving to allow access to the resident’s driveway and suggested vacating the alley to resolve a long‑running maintenance question.
City staff discussed funding options. The local streets fund balance was stated as $703,000, but staff also said the fund was about $125,000 over expenditures for the year to date. Staff advised against using the public improvement fund because of commitments on a Third Street project and suggested using the local streets fund or general fund as alternatives. Staff estimated the immediate paving option as just over $17,000 for a 2‑inch overlay; that estimate did not include a barrier or guardrail at the end of the street.
Public works‑related staff cautioned that the segment has not been assessed in the city’s PASER (Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating) inventory and that simply overlaying the existing gravel without excavating and rebuilding the base could require remedial work later. Bill, a staff member, said the current work would not be “done as a road” if the base is not corrected: “we're not excavating the the the stuff out of there. We're not putting the base material in there.”
There was also discussion about whether city funds should be used when the paving would serve essentially a single property. One council member said vacating the alley would transfer additional property to the resident and risk appearing to pave a private driveway with public money.
The city attorney advised the council that the aerial photo and original plat show the area at issue was dedicated to the city as an alley, and that alley‑vacation steps would require multiple meetings and legal procedures. Staff said there are no city‑owned utilities in the alley and that the utility provider UPCO indicated it does not require an easement and that existing lines are prescriptive.
After discussion, a council member moved, and the council seconded, to place the Cedar/Tamarack item on the agenda for the next regular meeting and to have the Department of Public Works and the zoning department gather the requested information. The motion passed by voice vote.
