CC 10-10-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - October 10, 2000 4 Councilmember Aplikowski stated she has difficulty receiving the report, as the resolution states . that the Council will consider improvements in accordance with receiving the report. She added she does not support receiving the report. Councilmember Rem stated the rcvised feasibility report has no significant changes over the original feasibility report, She added, in her opinion, there is no reason to hold a public hearing when no changes have been made and the issucs contained in the report have already been discussed at previous public hearings. MOTION: Councilmember Rem moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to refuse to adopt Resolution #00-35, receiving the Revised Feasibility Report in the matter of the 2000/2001 Street Improvement Project, nor to schedule a public hearing. Councilmember Aplikowski stated that the entire project should be delayed a few years until the City is more comfortable with the program as proposed. She added she is aware that it will cost the City more money later by not moving ahead with the program now, Councilmember Rcm stated she would be interested to review the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP) document which she has never received since joining the Council. She added there is some confusion and misunderstanding among the Councilmembers with regard to the City's pavement management policies, She reiterated she would wish to review a copy of such a . policy, Mayor Probst stated the Pavement Management Program policy is available for review. He expressed his disappointment that the Council has a lack of understanding of the program and what it represents after a year and a half of deliberation on the issue, Mayor Probst stated he disagrees that the revised report has not been signilicantly changed. He added the report is dramatically different than what tlle Council reviewed in the past. He noted the City Engineer has done what was requested. He expressed concern that the Council did not clearly identify its expectations if the revised report is not what was expected, Mayor Probst stated that the City Engineer responded by reviewing the items which the Council requested. He addcd that nothing is gained by not receiving the report and bringing some closure to the issue. He expressed concern that further difficult decisions would be delayed by refusing to receive the report, He urged the Council to reject the motion on the table and pass the resolution as proposed, Councilmember Larson asked, with regard to the contingency fee, whether the City Engineer feels that it reflects an uncertainty with regard to inflated costs, Mr, Brown agreed, noting that the increased contingency fee was used as a convenient way to address inflation, He expressed confidence that the contingency fee will represent an accurate figure as far as total estimated project costs, .