Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.31.06 Work Session Minutes Council Workshop Minutes Mill and Overlay Project August 31, 2006 Acting Mayor Fogarty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Audience: Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff Soderberg, Wilson Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator; Lee Mann, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Mary and Richard Swanson, Jerry and Denise Ristow, Jeff Thelen, Jerry Benoit, David Pietsch, Bob and Anita Doll, Peggy Backes, Lois Meyer, Mark Ford, Burt Gus, Dave Steinke, Bryan Hildreth, Rita Peltier, Barbara Routhier, Kris Alberts, Barb Hawkinson, Deb and Rich Regemitter, Vicki Pepera, Ken Kuchera, Adamson, Fred Alstrom, Pete Gerten, Robert Lane, Scott and Lauren Graham, Tim Carey, Dan Cuka, Brian Kempenich, Don Hunter, Brian Klutz, Brett and Cheri Roegiers, David Truax, Susan Welch, Sam and Paulette Huston, Mike Morton, Lacelle Cordes Present: Absent: Also Present: Councilmember Pritzlaff asked that public comments be added to the agenda. Acting Mayor Fogarty noted generally Council does not take public comments at workshops. There has been a public hearing and there will be a Council Meeting on September 5, 2006 ifthere are any changes, public comments can be taken then. Councilmember McKnight stated he did not have a problem with taking public comments. Acting Mayor Fogarty agreed to add public comments to the agenda, but they needed to contain new information. MOTION by Pritzlaff, second by McKnight to approve the agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss the status of the mill and overlay proj ect in the Chateau Manor and Sunnyside areas and issues that have arisen. The roads in these areas are 35- 40 years old. City Engineer Mann provided an update on the conditions of the streets since the milling started. Staffhas encountered some conditions that were not anticipated. It was anticipated to mill off 1" of pavement and find 3-4" of existing pavement and in a solid enough condition to overlay that would last 10-15 years. Staffhas found the pavement in the area varies significantly from 2" to 6". In some areas the condition ofthe pavement after milling is in a condition that it cannot be overlayed. In some areas the milling pulled up the pavement to the base below. City Engineer Mann presented a map showing streets constructed in 1965 (yellow on the map). At that time there was 1.5" of bituminous placed on the streets with 6" of class 5 and 4" of class 4 aggregate base. Current standards are a bare minimum of3.5", 4" or 5" depending on the type of development and the type of road being built. The 1.5" is an amount of asphalt that would not be able to be milled and overlayed. There may be some areas in these streets due to patching over the years may have more than that, but that varied. Some other streets (green on the map) were built in 1968. In this area there was 1.5" of wearing asphalt and 2.5" of base asphalt, so there was a total of 4" which is closer to City standard, however, there was not aggregate base placed under the asphalt. The asphalt was put directly on the existing ground after the area was graded. Other streets (in pink on the map) were built in 1970 which have 5" of asphalt without any aggregate base below the asphalt. Streets built in 1972 (orange on the map) have 4" of asphalt with no aggregate base below the asphalt. Council Workshop Minutes August 31,2006 Page 2 Staffhas done an analysis of what the records show and what they found in the streets and have a solution to the situation. On most of the streets either there is not enough asphalt to overlay on top of, or the asphalt has deteriorated to a state where it is not recommended to overlay what is left. The areas in pink on the map where there was 5" of asphalt have enough asphalt left and it is in a condition where it could be overlayed. The original bid was $373,000. Due to additional curb being removed and additional patching the cost of the project would be $446,500. In looking at the options, for much of the pavement, a full depth mill will be needed in areas where there is no gravel base. A class 5 base will be needed under the new pavement. Staff also reviewed whether to save the good areas (in pink on the map). Options are as follows: Option 1 is a full depth mill which would mill the street and put the asphalt back on whatever base is there. The total project cost would be $651,300. Option 2 is a full depth mill of all areas and to add class 5 to all areas to have a consistent 6" of class 5 aggregate base. The cost would be $729,900. Option 3 is a full depth mill and save the areas that are able to be overlayed. This cost would be $562,200. Option 4 is a full depth mill and add class 5 that have not had class 5 before and saving those areas with the good pavement to be overlayed. The cost would be $609,700. Staff feels it is not in the City's best interest to repave over areas that do have aggregate underneath. The areas in pink on the map are able to take the overlay and be acceptable. Therefore, staff recommended option 4. Staff needs to advise the contractor by the end of the week how the project should move forward. The contractor could try to have the mill in by September 11, but guarantee it will be in by September 18,2006. City Administrator Herlofsky stated staffhas to inform the contractor how to proceed and come back with a recommendation regarding the assessments to find a fair and appropriate way to treat this area and any other areas in the future. Mr. Fred Alstrum, 1408 Lower Heritage Way, suggested instead of hauling in class 5 use the asphalt that was ground off for the base. The engineers researched that option and found it would cost more to grind up the asphalt and mix it with the material underneath than to shape it and haul it in. Ms. Lacelle Cordes, 1405 Lower Heritage Way, one of the issues she has is when the curb and gutter work was done they did 90% and left 10%. If they were going to do that much, why not just finish the job. Councilmember Fogarty stated in the original estimate, they estimated 1/3 to )1z so it is more than they expected to have to do. Ms. Cordes stated they left the neighborhood looking hideous. They have a patchwork of old and new. She has 35 ft. of new, 5 ft. of old, 10 ft. of new, 5 ft. of old. The portions left were in the worse condition. She would like staffto look at making it all new if that can be done. Also, when they tore up driveways, they took out a portion of the end of the driveway to put in the new entrance and made her driveway worse than it was before. The driveway had cracks previously, but they are bigger now. What compensation do they have for that? They did not want the project to begin with. The road was Council Workshop Minutes August 31,2006 Page 3 not bad. There may have been an area on one road that needed some patchwork, but the road was fine. Mr. Jeff Thelen, 616 Lower Heritage Way, heard that early on some ofthe citizens were not concerned about the project. He has been at every meeting including the first workshop in February. At that first workshop there were only two people here, but they were adamant that we were against the project and we insisted we did not need it. The City Engineer insisted that it was necessary and he spoke about the road ratings and how the roads are rated from 0 to 100. All along the residents were assuming the ratings were low enough to warrant the project as it was stated. At the other meetings, he has not heard one citizen that commented that they were in favor of this project. Every comment Council heard was everybody did not want the project to proceed. They were happy with the roads considering the age they are and knowing the road will last another 10 years, let's wait for the 10 years and then do the total reconstruct. Never has Council heard a comment from residents in this area that they were asking for this project. Now we have the mess and we have to deal with it, but it is not because residents have requested any additional service on the road other than normal maintenance. Mr. Pete Gerten, 707 Centennial Circle, attended the meeting in March when the project was approved, and he was totally against it. At that time, he knew nothing about the curb being done, but was told at the meeting the estimates were worse case scenarios. Where did that figure come from? Did we not check the condition of the road before we said it was worse case scenario? That was supposed to be the maximum assessment and the maximum cost. Now the tables have turned. He feels someone is liable. He did not want the project. None of his neighbors wanted the project. In Centennial Circle there was not even a crack in the circle and now everyone's driveways are in worse condition than when they started. They have a mess. Someone is liable whether it is engineering, the contractor, or Council. Mr. Dave Steinke, 1412 Lower Heritage Way, stated he keeps hearing 1" or 1.5" on the mill and overlay that they were going to grind off. Having watched them do that, there was more than that taken off in a lot ofthe areas. He felt 2" to 3" was removed and in some places 4" was removed. There is an existing ridge in the pavement now where it is close to 4" where it was cut. Maybe the contractor went too deep and that is part of what is causing the bear spots. There was considerably more than 1" to 1.5" taken off on Lower Heritage Way. Ms. Deb O'Donnell, 505 Heritage Way, wanted to address the financial concerns with the additional expense and reviewing the financial options available afterwards. Every resident has an investment either financial or frustration wise the last few months and felt they should have an option to make some decisions as to where their tax money is going, what kind of funds our City and County can offer to take some ofthe burden offthe residents. Weare not the poorest County out there and she truly believes there has to be some funds to help absorb this. We cannot put the paving back, but residents can certainly make some decisions about where their money goes and how much they can expect from the City. The City has a budget with costs, tables and demographic information and she would like to know if residents can have that. Mr. Scott Graham, 509 Lower Heritage Way, stated they have all listened to this and have been put in a position where a project was thrust upon them they did not want. He has not heard anyone say we need our streets milled. They have done half a job with removing curbs and gutters. Some are done and some are not done. The rain has run under the pieces of curbing and Council Workshop Minutes August 31,2006 Page 4 he asked if there is a guarantee from the contractor that when those areas settle, will they replace them? He has not heard anything about that. When the road buckles because the water has run underneath it will it be replaced? They do not hear anything about that and they are getting assessed for this. No one wanted the project, why have we done it and why isn't it being done the right way from the start. Mr. Jerry Ristow, 516 Lower Heritage Way, stated he has been to four or five ofthe meetings, pleading with Council to do their homework before the project began. He does not believe that was done. He was at the July 3,2006 meeting and gave the information to Council after staff had given it to him. He does not believe Council was informed on this, they did not know what they were doing when the project was approved. City Engineer Mann mentioned the maps and wished he would have shown where the bad spots are. Heritage Way was the worst road and Mr. Ristow, Councilmember Pritzlaff and Councilmember Wilson were told you could take a pitchfork and dig it out. According to the map, Heritage Way is one ofthe better roads. Then stafflooked at the road and when it was built. This should have been done beforehand, not now. It is too late in the game. We have a mess and if we have three or four days of rain we will have a mud hole. He gave the three Councilmembers in attendance credit for the initiative to look at this. Councilmember Pritzlaffhas been in the area many, many times and met with the neighbors. We need to get the road fixed. It is serious now. He pleaded with Council before to wait another five or six years and they could have done a complete mill. Now we need a complete mill. To haul the gravel in, it will be up to $6,000 where before the assessment was $985. He has all the documents, the pavement management study and the updated study. The roads were in the acceptable range when Council voted for the project. Heritage Way was at 84.5 and he was at the July 3, 2006 meeting addressing that. On July 6, 2006 it went from 84 down to 7.79. Other roads in the same study are in worse shape. He does not know how people are driving on them today, if staff was so worried about their roads. Some Councilmembers made a comment that the project was delayed in 2005 and they could not think about delaying it another year. Council needs to look at the residents. They just paid $400 last year and now they are looking at $1,000 this year. He suggested the engineering firm may have insurance that can help out. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated one of his concerns is the feasibility study originally estimated the project cost at $464,468. The new number as oftoday is $446,000. Also it was stated at the April 3, 2006 Council meeting 1/3 to 'ii ofthe curb was budgeted. Ifwe budgeted for 1/3 to 'ii how come we have 75-80% of the curb replaced and we are still not up to the original estimated cost on the feasibility study. City Engineer Mann replied the feasibility report costs have three components. The first is the actual list of items and their estimated bid prices. On top ofthat cost there is a 10% contingency. That gives the estimated construction costs. The third part is 27% is added to cover engineering, legal and administrative expenses. The cost today covers the construction costs. $373,000 was the bid amount based on the quantities in the bid. The second number is based on the quantities received to date with the additional curb identified. The engineering cost is not shown in those numbers yet. That number is not yet final. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked ifhe should look at a 27% increase for engineering, legal and administrative costs. Staff replied not necessarily. The 27% is a budgeting number to be consistent with all projects. In some cases it is more or less. City Administrator Herlofsky stated the 27% is not a consultant fee. It is only used to estimate the cost. In this case the project had very little consultant participation. The project was originally assigned to the previous Council Workshop Minutes August 31,2006 Page 5 Assistant City Engineer and his costs and hourly rates would have been charged to the project rather than the consultant. A very small portion of the 27% would be Bonestroo. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated the second area he had a question on was the ratings of the road. The pavement management study, which he feels he should have had in February or March when they looked at this project, shows that in 2003 the worst road was Heritage Way from TH3 to Lower Heritage Way and was at 62.3. From there it goes up to 67.56 on Sunnyside Drive. Everything after that is in the 70's and 80's. The categories are 0-35, 35-55, and 55-95. Ifhe would have had these numbers, he would not have thought they needed a mill and overlay. Then he received an updated study where the roads were re-rated on October 12, 2005. Some numbers dropped and some are the same. The road was rated again on July 6, 2006. He asked how many people were already working on that project and what type of work was done in July. City Engineer Mann replied he did not believe the project started yet when the roads were re-rated. He understood the previous project manager sent out an intern to re-rate the project so they would have the data for the records. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated when Lower Heritage Way was re-rated on July 6,2006 it was rated at 27.05. That falls below what a mill and overlay would have done to this road. He understood that once the contract was awarded he could not pull it back. Had he seen this number, he would have pulled the contract. The rating should have been less than or equal to 35 for a reconstruct or full depth asphalt. Before they start pulling curb, he receives information that this road does not warrant a mill and overlay. He would have said to wait and do a road reconstruct. He has issues as to when and how this came to him and how one particular road can drop in 10 months from 71.88 to 27.05. With that type of rating drop, what goes into rating these roads and why did we not know what we were dealing with. In rating the roads, why didn't we know what we know today? City Engineer Mann stated staff will be reviewing how the roads are rated. There have been different people doing the ratings. Those ratings were done by two different individuals. Staffwill be reviewing how this was determined and why things do not make sense and to make sure ratings are consistent in the future. Council would like to receive the road ratings with a mill and overlay request. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated these ratings need to be explained to him. If a road is rated at 71.8 and now comes back at 27.05, what does the rating mean? Do we look at it, do drilling, look at how much asphalt there is? It is fine to fix this in the future, but we need to fix this now. He cannot look into the future. He needs to know why they got to where they are today with these ratings. It was also brought to his attention that they did some blow patching which seemed to be experimental. City Engineer Mann replied from the standpoint that the City started doing it at a particular point and had not done it before that. It was a product that was out there and staff decided to try it to see if it worked. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated he walked a lot of the roads before the milling took place and he saw areas around the blow patch where it loosened a lot of the asphalt around it. He feels we put down a product that made the roads deteriorate faster. He would have wanted a normal asphalt patch rather than experiment with something that deteriorated the roads faster. Regarding the reconstruct area, he noted two to three weeks ago, in Centennial Drive and along a couple other streets that the curb was at a different level than it was to start with. It was his understanding they were not changing the level of the road. The curbs on Centennial Circle were dropped 6" to 8". That is not a mill and overlay that was a reconstruct from the start which he was not informed of. He cannot be responsible for any cost ofthat road as it is beyond what he Council Workshop Minutes August 31, 2006 Page 6 voted for. There are other areas where the road was dropped and they will have to take out all the asphalt and get down to the grade. He and City Administrator Herlofsky were looking at the project and Councilmember Pritzlaff stated they have three projects. There is a full reconstruct in Hill Dee, and mill and overlay which this was supposed to have been, now what he sees is a halfre-construct project. It is not a half-reconstruct it is a road reconstruct and that is not something he voted for. We would not have been in this situation ifhe had known then what he knows today. He asked who determined the amount of curb and the curb condition that would be replaced. City Engineer Mann replied he would have to check the records as to who was out there at the time. When the curb was being reviewed, some staffthat is no longer with the City was directing the work. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated there had to have been some parameters as to what was bad and what was not. He noted there was some curb that should have been replaced. It would have been better at this stage, as it looks like a checker board and chopped up, if all ofthe curb had been done. There would have been some yard work needed, but he would have been willing to do that. Ifwhat is left is 35 years old, how much longer will it last? Driveways are a huge area to him. There are three driveways with new concrete and he was told driveways are incidental and the City is not paying for driveways. He does not think they are incidental as every driveway has been touched. There is no consistency as to how far they went back, why they went that far back, some went to the natural break, some made a new cut. There are concrete driveways that have a 45 kickout on one side, on the new it is straight down to the curb. On the asphalt driveways, they are 16" to 18" cut back from the curb to put a form in to do the curb. They have dropped at least 8" of asphalt in there instead of filling it with class 5. This was also done on portions of the road. That will do nothing but settle and pack down in the future. These people will have areas offtheir driveways that will hold water. That is unacceptable and he will not have people's driveways sinking in the future which they will do using asphalt as fill. There has been chipping of the new curb. There are already markings on the new curb that they will replace because of the mill and overlay. He assumed this was at the contractor's cost. There has also been grinding of the valley gutters. He assumed they were not doing that type of concrete because that is not mill and overlay. To change all the valleys that have been changed, he is not willing to accept that. A comment was made as to whether funds could help with this. He cannot stand spending any more money from the taxpayers on this. We need to look at insurance and see what can be done differently on this project. Future settling in the driveways that have been patched has been mentioned. What type of warranty do the people have whether it is concrete or asphalt if settles in one or two freeze/thaw cycles. Councilmember McKnight stated he would use Park Drive as an example. How does the City not know there is only 1.5" of bituminous on the street especially going into the project? City Engineer Mann stated he would have to ask the individual who put the proj ect together as to why that happened that way. Councilmember McKnight stated that is unacceptable to him. Councilmember Pritzlaff asked a number of the questions he had. When looking at Park Drive that had a 73 rating in 2005. Someone else did the ratings this year and some roads took a substantial drop. Park Drive dropped down to 50. rf something is a 73 he does not need to touch it. He understood if they are doing projects in the area and there are streets a little higher than the 55 we might as well include them. Councilmember Pritzlaffs comments on the ratings are 100% correct. Theses are not getting into the don't drive on me range. He has a number of questions on the financial implications. He did not vote for this project because residents did not deserve back to back assessments. rfhe would have been fully informed, there would have been a very different reason as to why he did not vote for it. He asked who pays for this error? City Administrator Herlofsky stated the normal assessment policy is 35% to the residents and 65% to Council Workshop Minutes August 31,2006 Page 7 the City. Acting Mayor Fogarty stated if Council does not want costs to the residents to increase per resident as an assessment, and we do not want the assessments higher than originally estimated what other options do we have to finance the remainder ofthe project. City Administrator Herlofsky stated staff has briefly discussed some options, but wanted to wait for Council direction. If Council does not want to go over the original 35%, one option would be 30% more, staff would have to look at options. There are issues regarding the curb affecting storm water that would not only apply to this area, but to other projects as well. Whatever is not covered or directly assessed to the property owners in this area, the rest is shared with the rest of the community. Staff needs to be fair to these residents and the whole community. Councilmember McKnight stated we entered into this project thinking we need to A and now we need to do B. Does the City have any other alternatives on responsibility? City Administrator Herlofsky stated there are many issues where we go into an item and find out things we did not know at the beginning. This is not the only time this will occur. Staff needs to look at options. This was not a consultant proj ect, this was City staff. There are questions about the amount of curb and the depth of the blacktop which would have been better to have known ahead oftime. Everyone is trying to find a way to solve the problem. We have a situation that is not something we planned to be in and now we are looking how to best handle it, learn so we do not make the same mistake again, and receive comments from Council. Councilmember McKnight asked if we know how much it would cost to finish all of the curb. Staff stated that would be based on the unit prices we already have and an estimate could be done. City Administrator Herlofsky stated this is the first mill and overlay in one specific neighborhood. They have observed 3rd Street between Ash and Spruce had a mill and overlay five years ago. One thing he noticed there was also portions of curb removed in that project. Now it is hard to determine what was new and what had been there previously. Staff needs to determine the cost and once the curb has weathered, will it make that big a difference. He suggested people look at 3rd Street and see if that is significant enough to merit additional cost. A resident asked what the difference is between having done all the curb in the beginning and going back to do it all now. City Administrator Herlofsky stated he was surprised by the amount of curb replaced. The issue was from a cost basis by making as much use of the curb that was there as possible versus tearing it all out it was a decision as to which is the better way to do it. If you remove the curb entirely you have to re-engineer and check the driveways and it ends up being higher engineering costs. If you take a chance and say there is not as much curb being removed you can keep the cost down, but it costs more to put the individual curbs in. It is a wash between the way it was done now and the added engineering costs necessary if we took it all out and started over again. There would also be more issues with the driveways as some of the grades would be changed. A resident stated on Lower Heritage Way every driveway was taken out. City Administrator Herlofsky stated the grade was not changed as they were put back to match up with the curb that was put in that was consistent with what was there before. The residents stated this is not the case. City Engineer Mann stated the intent was to follow the grade that was out there. Staffwill look at the situation. City Administrator Herlofsky stated in a couple areas the reason the curb looks like it was lowered was because the tree next to the curb had raised the previous curb and disturbed the normal flow of water which was the intent ofthe project to get the water more effectively out of the area. Where there was curb that had settled or been raised, the basic design was to line up the new curb so it would drain properly. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated there are some spots where the tree roots raised the curb. The few that there are does not take into account all the curb that was replaced. Looking at Centennial Court, that has severely dropped on one side 8" if not more. From that standpoint Council Workshop Minutes August 31,2006 Page 8 alone, that tells him it was a reconstruct project. Anything that had to deal with a reconstruct should come from the storm water fund. If we were trying to do that, he would have voted no for the project. He wanted to do a mill and overlay if that was warranted. Now he has a hard time seeing that was warranted. At 707 Centennial Court the approach on the driveway is raised 3" to 4". This needs to be reviewed. The grade was not supposed to have changed in this area. Every driveway in the area has been touched. That is not what he wanted done. Whatever the contractor was going to do as far as the driveways, it has to be uniform. How far did he go back on one driveway, why did he not go back that far on the next driveway? He would rather see it at the original line when the homeowner had the driveway done. One has a cut that is not straight across and it is not up to the cut line. That is unacceptable. Where the filling was done with the asphalt, that is also unacceptable. The driveways were incidental, now they are not so incidental and he has a problem with that. As far as curb settling and appearance, the appearance is an issue but not as big an issue as the areas left that are 35-40 years old, we have told everyone that will extend the life ofthe road 10-15 years. He believes that within 5 years the portions of the curb not replaced now will be replaced. That is unacceptable. He did not want to see anything to do with this project for 10 years. He has an issue with taking out 4 ft. and leaving 8 ft. throughout the whole project. It is an internal issue that needs to be worked out. Whether it was City employees that were or are here, he needs to look at engineering. There are some mistakes from what he sees from the engineering firm that need to be looked at and held accountable. Maybe that is where some of this money needs to come from. This is not what was supposed to be done so there will be internal discussions on the engineering aspect. Councilmember McKnight stated when looking at the current costs of $446,000 and the recommended cost of $609,700 for the full depth mill and saving the good areas, what are the ramifications if we decide to take this from a different fund and not assess that. What are the ramifications for past projects and for the future for setting a precedence? Ifhe lived in this neighborhood he would also be here. He needs to know the ramifications. Do we have the money, where will it come from, etc.? Those are legal questions that he will need answered before he can make another decision on this issue. Councilmember Fogarty also wanted to know the financial ramifications. She did not think this should cost the residents more than what was projected at the beginning. She understood it is much worse than what was expected. There is a calibration problem in the pavement management program between employees. When the numbers are so different it does not make sense and she relied on those numbers. As much as she does not find the numbers reliable it turns out that the engineer looking at the pavement did understand what he was looking at. Unfortunately, it was worse than he thought. These roads are in worse shape than anticipated and it probably should have been a full reconstruct. She would like to know about the funds and what kind of precedent will be set. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated this should not cost the residents one more dollar. Somehow this will have to come out of a different area and these people should not be assessed any more. He has serious issues whether the ratings are accurate. He hoped we do not take a rating just by looking at a road. Why are we not doing drilling with a 1" hole and determining how much is there. How the roads are rated needs to be reviewed. He agreed we need to talk to the City Attorney. We need to finish the project. There should be some mechanisms in negotiating the rest of the curb. They have to replace 50% of new curb because of the mill and overlay breaking the edges. They have to be out there, so he does not see why they cannot negotiate a deal to Council Workshop Minutes August 31,2006 Page 9 make the curb uniform. We need to get the project done. Funding is a big issue and engineering is on the top of the list. Internal explanations have to be brought forth. This will be placed on the September 5, 2006 Council agenda. MOTION by McKnight, second by Pritlzaffto adjourn at 8:21 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~ /r7afeL Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant