Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Streets Paving topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables Cedar Street paving and possible alley vacation, asks staff for more data
Summary
After decades‑old complaints from property owner Mr. Beltrami, the council delayed a decision on paving and vacating an alley at Cedar Street/Tamarack and directed DPW and zoning to provide additional PASER, ownership and funding information at the next regular meeting.
The Ishpeming City Council moved the Cedar Street/Tamarack paving and potential alley‑vacation matter to its next regular meeting and asked public works and zoning staff to gather additional information before taking action.
A resident complaint from property owner Mr. Beltrami—who said he has raised the issue for more than 40 years—prompted staff to recommend paving the segment to allow driveway access and to consider vacating the alley. City staff explained options for funding the work could include the public improvement fund, the general fund, or the local streets fund; staff said the local streets fund balance shows $703,000 but is currently running about $125,000 over revenue year‑to‑date.
Public works staff raised concerns about the road’s current condition and PASER rating, noting the location is not listed in the city’s PASER assessment and describing potential long‑term maintenance issues if an overlay is applied without excavating and rebuilding the base. A 2‑inch overlay bid of roughly $17,000 was discussed; council members questioned whether paving would amount to spending public money to improve what might essentially be private driveway access.
Council members also asked whether the segment is technically an alley or a street. The city attorney said the original plat dedicated the area as an alley and that dedication extends north; staff said there are no city‑owned utilities in the alley and that the local utility (UPCO) indicated no easement is required. Given outstanding questions about ownership, PASER inclusion, funding source appropriateness and private‑benefit concerns, the council voted to table the item and instructed the departments to prepare a full packet for the next regular meeting.
The council’s action was procedural: no paving contract was approved and no alley vacation was authorized at this meeting.
