CCP 10-30-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

D:I,!':]J fja ~T . _0. ~;,.. i ail ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - October 10, 2000 4 Councilmember Aplikowski stated she has difficulty receiving the report, as the resolution statcs . that the Council will consider improvements in accordance with receiving the report. She added she does not support receiving the report. Councilmcmber Rem stated the revised feasibility report has no significant changes over the original feasibility report. She added, in her opinion, therc is no reason to hold a public hearing when no changes have been made and the issues contained in the report have alrcady been discusscd at previous public hearings. MOTION: Councilmember Rem moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to refuse to adopt Resolution #00-35, rcceiving the Revised Feasibility Report in the mattcr of the 2000/2001 Street Improvement Project, nor to schedule a public hearing. Councilmember Aplikowski stated that the entire project should bc delayed a few years until the City is more comfortable with the program as proposed. She added she is aware that it will cost thc City more money later by not moving ahead with the program now. Councilmember Rem 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 revicw 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 thc program and what it represents after a year and a half of deliberation on the issue. Mayor Probst statcd he disagrccs that thc rcviscd report has not been significantly changed. He added the report is dramatically different than what the 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 rcsponded by reviewing the items which the Council requcsted. I-Ie 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 rcject the motion on the table and pass the resolution as proposcd. Councilmember Larson asked, with regard to the contingency fee, whethcr the City Engineer feels that it reJ1ects an uncertainty with regard to inflated costs. Mr. Bro\\-TI 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. .