10-26-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES DRAFT 3 developed using the Plan data. Ms. Hankee showed a map of the City indicating pavement 83 conditions. She reviewed a history of street maintenance done by the City. Data is used to make 84 recommendations on maintenance going forward. Staff is recommending changing the 85 specifications and maintenance strategies, increasing pavement depth on new construction and 86 eliminating seal coating. 87 Ms. Hankee reviewed the proposed 2021 Street Improvement projects. 88 Councilmember Ruhland noted the thicker roadway recommendation and asked how that will be 89 funded (developers?). Ms. Hankee said it would impact projects going forward. 90 Councilmember Stoesz noted Enid Trail that was recently improved but yet has a lower rating than 91 other older streets. Ms. Hankee will research the question. 92 Councilmember Lyden noted that the citizens of the City clearly care about keeping their roadways 93 maintained. He asked about the involvement of developers in providing the best lasting roadways 94 with their projects. Ms. Hankee explained the standards and improvements proposed that should 95 get the best long term results. Councilmember Lyden noted the high water table in the City, he sees 96 damage done by water on roadways and asked if addressing water in specifications is being done; 97 Ms. Hankee said standards do address the need. 98 Mayor Rafferty asked how the City choses whether or not to install curb and what type. Ms. 99 Hankee said it depends on conditions and location; curbs can be triggered by storm water 100 management needs. 101 Mayor Rafferty noted that there are many needs in the area of street maintenance and he understands 102 that the Pavement Management Plan is the tool used to guide an improvement program. He sees 103 that things are improving but it is expensive work. 104 Councilmember Cavegn asked if the report is available on the website. Ms. Hankee said the 105 Pavement Management Plan is not but will be added; the capital road program is on the website. 106 Councilmember Lyden moved to approve Resolution No. 20-115 as presented. Councilmember 107 Ruhland seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 108 Councilmember Ruhland moved to approve Resolution No. 20-116 as presented. Councilmember 109 Stoesz seconded the motion. 110 Councilmember Lyden noted the cost of the engineering services contract. The services provided 111 are really dealing with roads that are already in place. He sees there are many layers of 112 management involved. Is it possible to have a conversation about saving some of that cost? 113 City Engineer Hankee offered background, including explaining the work required in order to put 114 forward specifications for a bid. While it isn’t a design situation, there is much required to put the 115 project forward. She noted design engineering costs in the area of 5-6% compared with industry 116 standards closer to 10%. She also noted that it’s important to have the best quality at all levels of 117 the project. 118 Community Development Director Grochala indicated that he’s sent cost proposals for engineering 119 services back for a better price. In the case of this contract, he has gotten costs down to under 5% 120 which he feels is pretty good. 121 Councilmember Stoesz asked, if there is a design flaw, does the engineering servicer take 122 responsibility for the fix? Community Development Director Grochala said it depends upon the 123