The Andover City Council unanimously voted March 17 to rescind two resolutions authorizing alternate bids for bituminous curb rather than concrete on two street reconstruction projects, a move that drew sharp criticism from residents who said they felt deceived.
The projects are in Kadlec Estates and the Nightingale Preserve, Wittington Ridge, and Nightingale Estates First and Third additions. Public Works Director Dave Berkowitz said the issue had come up at a Feb. 24 workshop, where council members reviewed differences between concrete curb and gutter and bituminous curb after previously authorizing alternate bids for bituminous on Feb. 2.
At the workshop, Berkowitz said, staff reviewed advantages of concrete curb, including its ability to keep water off pavement, allow construction at a flatter grade that reduces standing water, and provide greater strength and durability.
Berkowitz said bituminous curb is flexible, and that newer materials are even more flexible than those used 30 years ago. He added, however, that the newer material does not hold up as well for curbing and can be challenging to use on reconstruction projects because of driveway matching, flat grades and boulevard backfilling.
After the workshop, the council directed staff to rescind the resolutions authorizing alternate bids for bituminous. Berkowitz said the projects would instead be rebid with concrete as the only allowable curb type.
During the resident forum at the start of the March 17 meeting, two residents sharply questioned the council’s decision to reverse course.
William Corn said the retraction did not receive the same level of public notice as the original action, which he said had been agreed upon with residents.
“This is commonly known as bait and switch,” Corn said.
Corn said the workshop had been more of an “echo chamber” with a predetermined outcome. He said staff members speaking on the record had acknowledged a bias toward concrete curbing.
Corn also argued that no financial analysis was presented. He said that when staff argued concrete would save money in the long run, the case was made from an engineering perspective rather than through financial analysis.
“There is still no refutable data that refutes the data that was presented by residents,” Corn said.
Corn said staff had been directed to look into bituminous options but did no work on the matter for three weeks.
“Ask yourselves: Did you really conduct an unbiased, data-driven review of the policy?” Corn said. “And were you truly transparent with the residents that worked so hard to provide you with the information to do that?”
Kevin Romano said he felt deceived after attending the Feb. 2 council meeting.
“You voted on and agreed that you would put the bid two different ways,” Romano said. “And then I read your session notes and it’s like, ‘No, I guess we’re not gonna do that.’”
Romano said he did not expect to be deceived and that he believed residents in the neighborhood had been disrespected by the way the matter was handled.
Council Member Jonathan Shafto said research he reviewed showed long-term maintenance costs for asphalt curbing are typically two to four times higher than for concrete, making concrete 60% to 80% less expensive over a 40-year life span.
Shafto said concrete should remain the city’s standard because it better prevents edge failures, extends pavement life, reduces plow damage, improves drainage control and aligns with Minnesota Department of Transportation urban state-aid design standards.
“I do understand that this is a significant cost,” Shafto said. “The up front cost is higher than bit curbing. And it is a financial burden to all of our taxpayers, especially those who live directly on those streets.”
Shafto said the city also needs to address road projects now because costs have generally doubled over the past 10 years.
Council Member Scott Schue said he had been the most reluctant council member to support the change because he wanted to better understand the financial data. He said he met with residents to discuss the issue and appreciated their input.
“Where it hurts, for both the residents and for the city council members here, is when we don’t see it the same way,” Schue said.
Schue said the meeting minutes are the official documentation, but they did not tell the whole story. He said Shafto had done a good job highlighting additional research that did not appear in the minutes, and that he ultimately became convinced concrete was the better option.
“Would I have liked to have seen a much stronger, data-driven by dollars from previous projects and things like that? Sure, I would have liked to have seen a lot of different things,” Schue said. “However, what we were presented with is what we have.”
Council Member Karen Godfrey said she appreciated residents who emailed and contacted the city. She said her biggest concern was the life-cycle cost to taxpayers across the city.
“The up front cost is a lot,” Godfrey said. “And it’s a great concern. The portion of that that we, in a shorthand way, identify as being the city’s 75%, we all know that’s not the city. It’s all of us.”
Mayor Jamie Barthel said staff had not slowed work on the issue after the February motion.
“In fact, hours had already been spent on this before it had been done,” Barthel said.