03.01 City Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Minutes February 4, 2020 Page8of11 ----------------------------- the road bed width is the same between the two rypes of roads but the drainage is the difference and that is the concern. He stated that he thinks there is a responsibility to make sure that you have a good road bed and good drainage so the road lasts. He said as far as the three and a half versus the two inch pavement that probably could be changed. Council Member Pederson asked who made the decision to classify part of North Sluetter Road as Residential and Mr. Houle stated that he made the decision based on as the report indicates, the types of roads that are in the City plan and drainage issues. Discussion ensued about the Council motion classifying it as Rustic Road and about why the middle section of North Sluetter Road cannot be classified as Rustic due to the drainage issues. Mr. Gorr talked about how the City has invited the Council to attend road surveys and about the discussions that have been had at the Council meeting for the past several months due to the motion that was made in September. Council Member Swanson discussed that she is not an expert on the motion that was made but that it is their job to make sure money is spent responsibility and asphalt cannot just be thrown down on a road and they call it good. Nancy Malecha stated City Staff brought forth their concerns to Council after they made Rustic Road motion since the motion came out of the blue. She stated City Staff including herself, Mr. Houle, and Jason Gorr went out to look at the road with an Anderson Brothers Representative, who are professionals in the field, and then they brought the concerns to the Council because they want the road to last. She stated the original quote was brought to the City by a property owner and their expertise in the field is unknown. Ms. Malecha stated it is the duty of the City Staff to come to the Council and ask them to think about the decision before moving forward with the motion. Discussion ensued about why the motion was not adjusted and that is why discussions up to this point have be had. Mr. Houle stated that the Feasibility Study is not the final word and the Council has the right to make certain comments about the study, the extent of the improvements, the special assessments the Council brought up, and the approach to special assessments. He explained that is why this project is on paper in front of them versus a set of plans in front of them and saying, this is what's designed and this is what is going out with the bid plan. Discussion ensued on the cost fluctuations on the road, drainage issues and other concerns to be addressed in the quotes that have been previously supplied. COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSON MOVED TO END THE NORTH SLUETTER PROJECT. COUNCIL MEMBER CLEMENT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-1. COUNCIL MEMBER SWANSON OPPOSED. 9.3. Collaborative Road Proiect Update