Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.05.07 Work Session Minutes Council Workshop Minutes September 5, 2007 Mayor Soderberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Also Present: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Brian Lindquist, Police Chief; Lee Mann, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Audience: Mary and Dick Swanson, Bonnie Sontag, Lois Meyer, Jerry Ristow, Dale Lomas, Christy Stieg, Clyde Hanson, Michael Morton, David Pietsch, Dick Godfrey, Pete Gerten, Jeff Thelen, Jerry Benoit, Mike Morton MOTION by McKnight, second by Wilson to approve the agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss the mill and overlay project in the Sunnyside and Chateau Manor Additions. Staff presented three options to resolve the issue. Two options included redoing the mill and overlay and the third was to do a seal coat. Councilmember Pritzlaffwas looking for people to share in the cost of whatever option was selected. Mayor Soderberg stated if the City will not pay for the overlay, he did not believe the contractor would pay for it. Councilmember Pritzlaffwas contacted by Aslakson's Blacktopping a couple months ago regarding punch orders they were receiving. The contractor asked if there would be a final payment or if there would continually be punch list items where he would have to eat the cost. Based on the information provided by the contractor, Councilmembers Pritzlaff and McKnight along with staff toured the project and there were some questions raised. Councilmember Pritzlaffwondered who was at fault. One issue is the gate valves and manholes and how the height was set. The height was checked on some, but not all because of a lack of time. He felt that was a step that was missed. The next issue was the temperature when the final lift was put down. Some mornings it was 11 degrees. City Engineer Mann gave the authorization to Aslakson's to pave the wear course that season. Aslakson's recommended not putting down the wear course because of the temperatures as they would not get a good product and good compaction. They were forced to do it because of the letter from the City, otherwise they would have been penalized. There was also an issue with the mix used. Originally it should have been a medium volume mix which was used and then there was a switch to low volume mix. Aslakson's explained to Councilmember Pritzlaffthat low volume mix has recycled products and medium volume does not. The amounts of products used in the medium volume mix are equal, the oil is absorbed differently because there is no recycled product, the gravel is no larger than a )t2 inch, where recycled product can contain % inch gravel. Councilmember Pritzlaff noticed some drag marks in the road because the rock was too big. If medium volume mix was used originally, why was there a change? The information received from staff stated it was changed after deciding to use the Class 5 and do the extra work after the project started. To save money, Council Workshop Minutes September 5, 2007 Page 2 staff decided to change to a low volume mix. This was not discussed with Council. Councilmember Pritzlaff felt if the City spent extra money putting down a solid base, it does not make sense to use a lesser quality top surface. Councilmember Pritzlaffwould like to see some participation in the cost from Bonestroo, Aslakson's and the City. Based on information he received from Aslakson's regarding the temperature, the State recommends not paving below 45 degrees. If the temperature is below freezing, any pavement put down is designed to be patched and expected to be torn out in the spring. When the temperature is 11 degrees in the morning, it will not warm up enough to meet the temperature standards. When the contractor says we will not get good compaction and a smooth surface, it would have been best for staffto bring it to Council. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated as long as there was one lift down, he would have recommended waiting until spring. He would like to meet with Bonestroo and do option 1, which includes milling % inch and overlaying 1 inch. If it cannot be done this year, it will be done next year and we will move forward with the assessments this year. Mayor Soderberg addressed the manhole covers. He asked if it is typical to survey and shoot elevations on all manholes prior to starting a project. City Engineer Mann replied it depends on the project. The manholes are very flush and would only need a small amount of asphalt to have it high enough for the manholes to be in the right position. Why that did not occur as the paving was done, staff does not know. The manhole lids cannot be high enough that they will catch the plows. Mayor Soderberg asked if normally the manholes are surveyed. City Engineer Mann stated they are staked so the contractor knows what the height needs to be. At the same time, if the base is in the correct spot and you know how much asphalt to put down, it is easy to know where the height ofthe lid will be. Mayor Soderberg asked if there was anything unusual in the response that not all manholes were surveyed. Staff replied no. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked if stakes were used in the project. City Engineer Mann replied off ofthe curb is where you figure where the pavement depth will be. You measure where the rock base is, which is 4 inches below what the asphalt will be, the manholes should be 'li inch below the asphalt, then the manhole would be placed 3 'li inches above the rock. As they go along, they should be able to fit the manhole properly. Councilmember Pritzlaffasked if there were stakes behind the curb. Staff felt they went off the curb. The curb is the reference point for the depth ofthe pavement because you have to match the curb. Mayor Soderberg then noted the mix was changed from medium volume to low volume and asked if that was a change in the specification after the project was let or was it supposed to be low volume mix. City Engineer Mann replied the original specifications included a medium volume mix. The low volume mix was reviewed. At the first meeting in September 2006 staff came to Council with an option where Council chose to add Class 5 to redo the streets. Between the first and second Council meetings, staff researched the specification and there was not a quantity for the excavation of where the Class 5 would go. The cost estimates had to be revised upwards. At the next meeting staff brought the flyash option to Council to save costs. As far as the originally approved option, staff reviewed it to see where it could be done as economically as possible. The low volume mix is a completely appropriate mix for this area of streets. The Hill Dee project used a low volume mix. It can be used for streets that have a significantly higher amount of traffic than these streets. Staff felt this was a reasonable way to save costs on the project. At that time costs were a significant issue. Mayor Soderberg asked why the original specifications would have a medium volume mix. City Engineer Mann replied a medium volume mix was in the specifications for the Main Street project, which has more traffic and more commercial vehicles. The former Assistant City Engineer used that project as an example Council Workshop Minutes September 5,2007 Page 3 for specifications for this mill and overlay project. City Administrator Herlofsky noted it was a budget issue. Staffwas trying to stay within the guidelines. Mayor Soderberg addressed the temperature issue. Some mornings the temperature was 11 degrees. He asked if it was reasonable to believe it would have warmed up enough to install asphalt. City Engineer Mann replied there are many instances where pavement is laid in varying temperatures. There are more optimum temperatures that are included in the MnDOT specifications. There are many examples of how pavement is laid in cold weather. The asphalt plants were open at that time, so there were various entities that were paving during that weather. The trick to paving in cold weather is to make sure the asphalt stays hot until it gets there, and rolling it while it is still hot. The density test done on the asphalt was within the normal parameters. Structurally the pavement is sound even though it was paved in cold weather. Councilmember Fogarty checked the temperatures and stated it never got as low as 11 degrees and 3 of the 5 days had appropriate temperatures according to MnDOT standards. Councilmember Wilson stated after the debate last year, he expected there would have been a keen eye to the project. He does not feel Bonestroo or anyone associated with the project meant ill will, but he had a couple concerns. In Marchi April he asked City Administrator Herlofsky when the second lift in Sunnyside would be done. He was told it had been done. He was surprised because it was in late OctoberlNovember. He felt there was a bad call made on getting the project done. He did not feel there was a connection between Council directing staff to get the project done and have it done with the possibility it may not turn out. He was in the area a couple weeks ago during a rain and noted the water was sitting in the middle of the road. With a reverse crowning effect, the residents were not left with a good product. It is worth $985, but he felt the job was rushed and some bad calls were made. He agreed with using option 1. He appealed to Bonestroo to give strong consideration to participating with the City in the cost. If there will be 100% participation by the City, he was not comfortable having the rest of Farmington covering another $118,000. He did not think it was unreasonable to ask Bonestroo to consider some cost sharing. In the haste to get the project done, some poor decisions were made. No one intended to have a bad product or give misinformation to the Council, but we do not have a project that is where it needs to be. Mayor Soderberg asked if it was standard practice to put down a lift and then wait a period of time for the second lift. City Engineer Mann replied the second lift is usually saved for the following season because of utility work that needs to be done. Staff likes to let the utility trenches settle and go through a freeze/thaw cycle before putting the wear on, so it can be fixed if necessary. On this project, there was no utility work so that reason did not exist to hold off on the wear. Mayor Soderberg asked if staff looked at the road during a rain. City Engineer Mann'stated he did drive through the area and reviewed pictures, and there are some areas where the lip in the middle of the road is holding some water. Mayor Soderberg asked how that gets resolved. City Engineer Mann stated they will have to watch the area and see what occurs over time. A seal coat would help that situation and keep the water from getting in. Councilmember Wilson stated the odds would tilt in favor of earlier wear than normal. City Engineer Mann replied if the water sits long enough and there is enough water, there is the possibility of some deterioration. How that actually works and what effect it will have, we cannot say. Councilmember Wilson stated the former Assistant City Engineer made comments to Council that we would have a road that Council Workshop Minutes September 5,2007 Page 4 would be sustainable for at least 15 years. Councilmember Wilson felt it was likely work would have to be done earlier than 2022. After assessing the residents for Ash Street and then this project, we would want to give them at least ala year break with the exception of seal coating. Councilmember Pritzlaffhad a concern with separation at the lip if water gets in; it is more susceptible to freezing and splitting the asphalt. He asked if staff felt there was any issue with longevity of the road. City Engineer Mann replied staffwill have to watch the road for any issues that arise and they will have to be addressed as they happen so the damage is minimized. The road as it was lasted 30-40 years in the state it was in. The base under most ofthe road now has been significantly enhanced. Expecting 10-14 years out ofthe road is a reasonable expectation. Councilmember McKnight thanked staff for providing the extra information. He was willing to go with option 1 and believed the City needed to look at partners for the cost. He would not exclude anyone. When he looks at the project, he feels it is not acceptable. It needs to be done correctly for the neighbors, City Council and staff. We also need to do it correctly to put it behind us. Councilmember Fogarty asked ifthey were to go with option 1 or 2 are there any guarantees that there would be improvement? City Engineer Mann replied there are opportunities to rectify some of the things. With a competent contractor a lot of them would be eliminated without creating other problems. Councilmember Fogarty asked if the road was structurally sound. City Engineer Mann replied yes. Councilmember Fogarty was concerned with residents at large paying for a mill and overlay on something that is a structurally sound road. She could not support having the rest of the community pay for it. The project did not go as planned. Council has already made concessions that they will not assess the full amount to accommodate that. The only way she would consider doing something that does not have a 100% guarantee to fix the issues is if Council reconsiders the assessment amount. Mayor Soderberg noted if Council followed the assessment policy, the assessment would be $1900. Council has already strayed from that policy. This means the balance of the City is picking up the rest ofthe cost. The policy was put in place to be fair. While it does not look nice in some spots, it will serve its purpose. He does not want to live through more construction. Some people have questioned the assessment policy. The road is structurally sound and a seal coat will be done in a couple years. He was not in favor of supporting any of the options. He would prefer to follow the assessment policy and assess the full amount, but Council cannot do that without starting the process over. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated there were some bad decisions made and someone needs to be held accountable. He noted the manhole covers were cut and had to be patched. When there was a change from medium volume to low volume mix, staff could have come back to Council. He would like to have the City Attorney and the City Administrator work with all parties involved. Councilmember Fogarty noted Council did approve the change in wear course. There was a lot of pressure from Council to get the proj ect done and Council did approve the changes. Whether Council understood what all the changes mean is open to interpretation. Councilmember Wilson agreed there was pressure to get the project done, but he did not believe Council ever took the position to get it done with inferior results. He was not pointing fingers, Council Workshop Minutes September 5, 2007 Page 5 but there was pressure to get it done, bad decisions were made, asphalt was laid on some days below 32 degrees. Regulation 2360 from the State Handbook states unless directed by Engineering in writing no paving is allowed under ordinary compaction methods when the temperature is below 32 degrees. Councilmember Wilson had data from the National Weather Service during that time where temperatures ranged above and below 32 degrees. He did not believe Council directed anyone on any project with the intent to have it done just to get it done. It should be done to high quality standards. After September 2006 he found it questionable that the second lift was done. If it would have been done in April, we would not be discussing this. The decision to delay or lay down the second lift should have been brought to Council. The patches compromise the integrity ofthe road. City Administrator Herlofsky noted staffwas looking for a consensus on the assessment for the next Council Meeting. Mayor Soderberg was prepared to move ahead with the assessment. Councilmember McKnight was prepared to go ahead with the assessment if there was a majority vote to move ahead with option 1. Mayor Soderberg noted he would not support any of the options. Councilmember Pritzlaffwas prepared to move ahead with the assessment as long as it includes option 1. This will tell the residents we will get the road done the way it should be done. Councilmember Wilson asked about the amount of the assessment for $118,000. Finance Director Roland noted assessing two separate amounts would be very difficult to do and will incur additional costs to the residents. Councilmember Wilson asked staff if 32 degrees is an industry wide standard. City Engineer Mann stated that is the state standard specification for paving, but there has been a lot of paving done below that temperature that has been successful. Councilmember Wilson asked if there was ever consideration given in late October that Council and the residents want to get this done, but staff did not feel comfortable with what the final product could be. City Engineer Mann replied that was discussed and staff realized there could be some aesthetic issues, but we could achieve structurally sound results. Staff also considered the volatility of oil, having to re-adjust manhole covers, etc. City Administrator Herlofsky stated the project was started early in the year and extended further than anticipated. It also kept the contractor there longer than expected. To have the contractor come back in the spring would add to the cost. The City has provided a road that can support the traffic and will be good for a period of time. Mayor Soderberg noted Councilmember Wilson stated the road was inferior and asked in what way. Councilmember Wilson replied he was comparing it to the Hill Dee project. In the flat area in Hill Dee, he has not seen water in the road. In Sunnyside during a rain there is water sitting in the seams in the road. He felt that was inferior. The water sitting in the road is his biggest concern. City Administrator Herlofsky noted a flat area is more difficult. There was not a re-design for the grade. Councilmember Wilson noted with the exception of utilities, this project became a reconstruct which is different than the intended mill and overlay. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated the majority ofthe area may not have been a reconstruct because the height of the curb was not changed, but when 4 inches of Class 5 was installed, the road is being reconstructed to the point where you may not get water to move lengthwise, but you can raise the center to get the water to flow to the curb. Centennial Court was a full reconstruct because the height ofthe curb was changed. In the information from Aslakson's, they noted asphalt should not be installed that late in the fall. Bonestroo was also advised the correct material should be used. The material used has larger stones and is much more difficult to blend together, especially at that temperature. In areas it looks like the packing was done by hand Council Workshop Minutes September 5,2007 Page 6 rather than by machine. Not only are there ridges, but it looks like rock was dragged and left holes for the water to sit. Maybe the contractor did not have the background to do the project. He wanted to trust the Engineering firm to bring in a good contractor. Councilmember Wilson was in favor of going ahead with the assessment, but wanted to hear about participation for option 1. Mr. Jeff Thelen, 616 Lower Heritage Way, in February 2006 he attended a meeting regarding this project where the original price was $465,000. Now staff is proposing to do a 1 inch mill and overlay which is the whole project with the exception of replacing the curb patches. Now, we think we can get it done for $120,000. City Engineer Mann replied the $465,000 was the entire proj ect cost which included all of the engineering costs, curb, etc. The $118,000 is a construction estimate. Mr. Thelen noted there is $347,000 difference. Mayor Soderberg noted it is not the same project and he hoped they would not mill and overlay the entire area as there are only a few areas affected. Mr. Thelen stated the original estimate at the start was $465,000 and now we are at $925,000, each time there is a meeting there is another surprise. He felt Council was ready to make a decision to propose a solution, but along with that is how will it be paid for? Each time Council has been reluctant to approve a project without knowing where the funding will come from. Now Council wants to approve the solution, before discussions with Bonestroo and Aslakson's. He felt Council needed to postpone this and have those discussions first. He urged Council to not jump in and find out there would be engineering costs, etc. and it goes up without knowing where the money will come from. Councilmember Fogarty would like to see the assessment done before the October 15, 2007 deadline, or it will be delayed another year. Her concern with approving the assessment is if Council goes ahead with option 1, then she would vote against the assessment because she would like to see the $118,000 assessed to those properties. They are getting a $2,000 benefit from the project. If option 1 is approved, then she would not vote in favor ofthe assessment. Councilmember McKnight did not anticipate Option 1 being done yet this year. He suggested meeting with Bonestroo and Aslakson's before the October 15 deadline for assessments. This would be brought back to the October 1,2007 Council Meeting. Councilmember Wilson agreed with scheduling a meeting with all parties as he cannot have the rest ofthe City absorb another $118,000. Mayor Soderberg asked if Council was looking for 100% participation from other partners or some money from the City as well. Councilmembers McKnight and Pritzlaffwould like to see it all from other parties. Finance Director Roland asked ifthey were linking the assessment to participation. If Council does not get participation, will they address the assessment at that time? Councilmember Pritzlaffwas not looking at addressing the assessment differently whether there is participation or not. If there is no participation at the October 1 meeting, will Council still go with option I? To fix the project, that has to be done. If it needs to go to the next level, Council will have to rely on the City Attorney for options. Mr. Jerry Benoit, 609 Heritage Way, three months ago he received a notice for the mill and overlay project for $985. He paid the amount, but the City has not cashed the check. Now things are in limbo and he would like to know what the assessment will be. If residents will be billed twice, he does not understand it. Finance Director Roland replied at this time, the notice residents received was for the public hearing which did take place and was closed. However, the assessment was not adopted at that time. When the Council meets to consider the assessment, they cannot change the amount from the amount sent out in the assessment letter. If Council Council Workshop Minutes September 5, 2007 Page 7 adopts the assessment it will be for $985. Ifthat amount is changed, the entire process has to start over. Staff has to notify residents, hold another hearing, and open everything again. That process takes 30 days. If Council chooses that route, the October 15, 2007 deadline would not be met. Mr. Jerry Ristow, 516 Lower Heritage Way, stated this project has gone on for over a year. He appreciated three of the Councilmembers for giving residents their consideration. A couple Councilmembers make him feel like the City is ripping them off. He noted Mayor Soderberg has two properties in the area and is benefiting from the project and asked ifhe should be voting on this. He was disappointed he does not give the residents consideration. Mr. Ristow asked if Mayor Soderberg checked with City Attorney Jamnik if there was a conflict of interest. Mayor Soderberg stated the Attorney has advised there is not a conflict of interest. Mr. Ristow stated the project was not adopted so it is still open. The three options have been brought back and forth. In the past the City has adhered to standards. The Class 5 gravel was put in 3 ft. deep. The homework was not done at the beginning of the project. He was at the Council meeting July 3,2006 and told Council the project met the specifications with an 80% rating. Three days later Engineering failed the road, so it was moved forward. There were only three roads done with gravel, Park Drive, Lower Heritage Way and the two circles. Some of the drains were changed on Heritage Way and Lower Heritage Way to a smaller drain so now the water slides over them. He urged Council to get the project done according to City standards. After he submitted an objection to the assessment, there was a letter saying the petition had to state what the objection was. Mr. Ristow asked a former City Attorney and was told you do not have to state the reason for the objection. Mr. Ristow felt enough residents stated it at the meeting, the quality of the road and the procedure. He also asked City Attorney Jamnik if the petition met the specifications for objecting to a project and was told it did. Mr. Ristow received a letter stating the residents only objected to the cost and the appraiser said the road would give a $2,000 benefit. $785 is being paid by the entire City. That is not the residents' fault. Heritage Way has the same base it started with, the original base was not removed. There is no crown on the road. He felt the residents should have more consideration before they are assessed. MnDOT standards should be followed. Mayor Soderberg noted Mr. Ristow does make a good point that Council should abide by City standards and policy. The City policy is that the assessed amount should be 35% of the project cost. At this point, he would favor going back to that City policy. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted when they say they will mill off % inch and overlay 1 inch, he suspected the 1 inch would be more in the center and the % inch will be flush with the curb. This will add to the crown in the road. City Engineer Mann noted how it gets milled will depend on what crown they end up with. You lay an extra ~ inch so you have the correct lip on the curb and the manholes. This is an estimate based on the quantity. Mr. Pete Gerten, 707 Centennial Circle, stated he attended the first meeting. His concerns were his road was seal coated in 2003, and in 2005 they had the assessment for Ash Street, in 2006 the City will grind the seal coating off and throw it away. His circle did not have any patches at that time, it was freshly seal coated. Now he has patches at the end of his driveway because the contractor paved over the water shutoff. They did not find the shutoff, but cut holes and patched them when looking for it. He asked if they do not need the water shutoff. City Engineer Mann replied there are enough valves in that circle to do what is needed. Mr. Gerten stated no one asked him where the shutoff is, and he knows the location. The contractor dug holes twice, Council Workshop Minutes September 5,2007 Page 8 paved over them, and in the spring when the snow pile in the middle ofthe cul-de-sac melted, all the water ran down the cracks of the patch. None of the water made it to the curb and gutter. Now staffis talking about seal coating the road in a couple of years. He asked ifhe will be charged again for that. He stated he will be charged $985 now, and then the City wants to assess him to mill and overlay it again, and in a couple years seal coat it and assess him again. Where does it end? Mayor Soderberg stated the seal coat was credited back into the project. Mr. Gerten stated he has not seen any evidence of that. Finance Director Roland will send Mr. Gerten a letter. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated Council will not assess another $985 if they go with option 1. Council will work with the parties involved on option 1. Mr. Gerten noted there were no saw cuts in the road as on other streets. The City hired an incompetent contractor and urged Council to not have them do the project again. Councilmember Wilson noted at one previous meeting Councilmember McKnight wanted options which included potential cost sharing by participants. He believed that has been requested twice and Council does not have that information. Council still has three options that involve no cost sharing. He has no confidence Council will have any different information October 1, 2007. He advised residents he does not like this project. At the beginning the newer Councilmembers did not see the Pavement Management Report which specified the different parts ofthat area did not need the type of work done. Some needed a mill and overlay, some seal coat and some a reconstruct. He had issues with the information received throughout this project from Engineering. Council has not received consistent information to make a good decision. Councilmember McKnight requested twice to have cost sharing information and we are sitting here again with costs of different options with no cost sharing information. He will not assess the rest of Farmington $118,000 to do more work out there. Ifthere is not close to 100% cost sharing, he cannot support it. It is painful to leave a project that is not a quality project, but he cannot add $118,000 more on top of a project that is already $200,000 over budget. Mayor Soderberg suspected they do not see any cost sharing because there isn't any available. Councilmember McKnight felt they have to ask. Mr. Mike Morton, 608 Heritage Way, stated he hears the word aesthetics. In November they paved the road, cracks were there by February. That is not aesthetics; that is function. Regarding the water that sits, it is water in the summer and ice in the winter. He felt it needs to be fixed. He did not feel the project is done, so the residents should not be assessed until it is. On July 24,2007 the property across from him was appraised. Council has mentioned value. The appraisal did not say anything about curb and gutter and new street as a benefit. The street was not mentioned. He looked at everything on the appraisal and nothing mentioned new street. He does not feel they got any value as a profession drove on it, parked on it and did not see it. He felt they have something that looks ancient and curbs that look ridiculous. Mr. Dale Lomas, 425 Whispering River Lane, was representing the First Presbyterian Church. He wrote two letters to City Engineer Mann dated July 25, 2007 and August 3, 2007 protesting the assessment method used for this project. He has not received a reply. He accepts that certain rules and procedures were followed. What is clear is there is very little fairness involved. Their church has a street frontage of just over 3% ofthe project and generates less than 1 % ofthe street traffic. They were assessed $14,775, which is 9% of the total proj ect. It is apparent that some radical changes to the process should occur. Using this assessment logic, ifthe church property included only the building and a small parking lot, the assessment would be reduced by 50 - Council Workshop Minutes September 5, 2007 Page 9 75%, but they still use the same amount of street. They are being penalized for providing an attractive green space for all the neighbors in the area. They feel they should pay their fair share of the street upkeep, but there should be some fairness in the process. He asked Council to consider reducing their assessment to the percentage of their street frontage which would be 3%. This would bring their assessment down to $5,400. That is equal to 5 ~ lot assessments. It is an unfair process. Finance Director Roland replied with regard to why the City has used Chapter 429 to do assessments in the past, it is entirely about fairness. It is due to the fact that the City has a large number of tax exempt properties which do not pay property taxes and therefore, do not share in the cost of various projects that are charged under citywide taxes. Consequently those properties are charged special assessments in order that it be fair across the board to other residents who do pay property taxes and special assessments. With regard to Mr. Lomas' comments, the Chapter 429 process demands that the City follows specific rules, one of which is that any and all protests to assessments must be presented prior to in writing, or at the hearing. Neither took place. The first correspondence came after the hearing was closed on July 16, 2007. No objection can be heard from the church unless the Council chooses to re-notice and re- open the hearing in order to consider those. At this point, despite the letters received and the protests received they cannot be accepted at this point, nor will they be considered by the State appeals court because they did not correspond with the public hearing notice. Ms. Mary Swanson, 1404 Lower Heritage Way, stated they had a road before the project that lasted for 37 years with a bad base. Why will the good base last only 15 years? City Engineer Mann stated they are confident the road will last at least 15 years based on history. Ms. Swanson asked why only 15 years when the other road lasted 37 years without a good base. Staff replied they may still get 37 years. The parameters discussed were 10-15 years at least. Ms. Swanson noted regarding the quality, City Engineer Mann felt it was a good job. Why will staff watch it for a few years to see what happens? If staff is confident it is a good job, they should not have to watch it for a few years and see if anything will happen. There are dips in the road that hold puddles of water the size of the sewer caps. There will be water seeping into the cracks in the road. The rest ofthe road was dry long before the cracks were dry. She felt they will cause problems. If staff was confident, she felt they would not have to watch it. MOTION by Fogarty, second by McKnight to adjourn at 8:42 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~?n~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant